{"title":"比较撤稿观察数据库、PubMed和Web of Science在识别医学撤稿出版物方面的表现。","authors":"Paul Sebo, Melissa Sebo","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2025.2484555","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the performance of Retraction Watch Database (RWD), PubMed, and Web of Science (WoS) in identifying retracted publications (RP) in medicine.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This cross-sectional study analyzed RP in 131 high-impact journals spanning nine disciplines: anesthesiology, dermatology, general internal medicine, gynecology/obstetrics, neurology, oncology, pediatrics, psychiatry, and radiology. Using RWD, PubMed, and WoS, we retrieved all publications that were retracted in these journals. The total number of RP was defined as the combined count across the three databases. We calculated the proportion of RP retrieved by each database overall, by journal, and by discipline.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 878 RP were identified. Anesthesiology accounted for the most RP (<i>n</i> = 382), followed by general internal medicine (<i>n</i> = 125) and gynecology/obstetrics (<i>n</i> = 116). RWD retrieved the highest number (815; 92.8%), followed by PubMed (758; 86.3%) and WoS (734; 83.6%). Performance varied across disciplines: RWD captured 75-99%, PubMed 52-97%, and WoS 58-96%. RWD outperformed the others in eight of nine disciplines; the exception was gynecology/obstetrics, where PubMed performed better.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>RWD demonstrated superior coverage compared to PubMed and WoS, though performance varied by discipline. Combining databases offers a more comprehensive approach to retraction identification.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-25"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing the performance of Retraction Watch Database, PubMed, and Web of Science in identifying retracted publications in medicine.\",\"authors\":\"Paul Sebo, Melissa Sebo\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08989621.2025.2484555\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the performance of Retraction Watch Database (RWD), PubMed, and Web of Science (WoS) in identifying retracted publications (RP) in medicine.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This cross-sectional study analyzed RP in 131 high-impact journals spanning nine disciplines: anesthesiology, dermatology, general internal medicine, gynecology/obstetrics, neurology, oncology, pediatrics, psychiatry, and radiology. Using RWD, PubMed, and WoS, we retrieved all publications that were retracted in these journals. The total number of RP was defined as the combined count across the three databases. We calculated the proportion of RP retrieved by each database overall, by journal, and by discipline.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 878 RP were identified. Anesthesiology accounted for the most RP (<i>n</i> = 382), followed by general internal medicine (<i>n</i> = 125) and gynecology/obstetrics (<i>n</i> = 116). RWD retrieved the highest number (815; 92.8%), followed by PubMed (758; 86.3%) and WoS (734; 83.6%). Performance varied across disciplines: RWD captured 75-99%, PubMed 52-97%, and WoS 58-96%. RWD outperformed the others in eight of nine disciplines; the exception was gynecology/obstetrics, where PubMed performed better.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>RWD demonstrated superior coverage compared to PubMed and WoS, though performance varied by discipline. Combining databases offers a more comprehensive approach to retraction identification.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50927,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-25\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2484555\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2484555","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparing the performance of Retraction Watch Database, PubMed, and Web of Science in identifying retracted publications in medicine.
Objective: To compare the performance of Retraction Watch Database (RWD), PubMed, and Web of Science (WoS) in identifying retracted publications (RP) in medicine.
Methods: This cross-sectional study analyzed RP in 131 high-impact journals spanning nine disciplines: anesthesiology, dermatology, general internal medicine, gynecology/obstetrics, neurology, oncology, pediatrics, psychiatry, and radiology. Using RWD, PubMed, and WoS, we retrieved all publications that were retracted in these journals. The total number of RP was defined as the combined count across the three databases. We calculated the proportion of RP retrieved by each database overall, by journal, and by discipline.
Results: A total of 878 RP were identified. Anesthesiology accounted for the most RP (n = 382), followed by general internal medicine (n = 125) and gynecology/obstetrics (n = 116). RWD retrieved the highest number (815; 92.8%), followed by PubMed (758; 86.3%) and WoS (734; 83.6%). Performance varied across disciplines: RWD captured 75-99%, PubMed 52-97%, and WoS 58-96%. RWD outperformed the others in eight of nine disciplines; the exception was gynecology/obstetrics, where PubMed performed better.
Conclusion: RWD demonstrated superior coverage compared to PubMed and WoS, though performance varied by discipline. Combining databases offers a more comprehensive approach to retraction identification.
期刊介绍：
Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results.
The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science.
All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
