Retracción de publicaciones científicas en América Latina: Un análisis de autores y coautores afiliados a instituciones de la región
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2026.1.1780Palabras clave:
retraction Watch, retracciones, publicaciones científicas, América Latina, mala conducta, error honesto, integridad académicaResumen
El presente artículo tiene como objetivo analizar y describir las retracciones de artículos científicos cuyos autores o coautores están afiliados a instituciones de países latinoamericanos. Los documentos analizados fueron obtenidos de la base de datos Retraction Watch hasta el 5 de diciembre de 2024, sumando un total de 614 registros. Brasil es el país con la mayor cantidad de retracciones (283). Hasta 2009, el número de retracciones se mantuvo bajo; sin embargo, a partir de 2010 experimentó un incremento sostenido, con un 54,5% de los casos atribuidos a mala conducta o fraude. El estudio concluye que, si bien las retracciones en Latinoamérica representan una proporción menor en comparación con las retracciones a nivel mundial y con el total de publicaciones científicas de la región, su análisis es fundamental debido al impacto que tienen en la comunidad científica, en la credibilidad de la ciencia y en la práctica profesional de diversas disciplinas.
Descargas
Citas
AIRyalat, S. A., Azzam, M., Massad, A., y Alqatawneh, D. (2020). Retractions of research papers by authors from the Arab region (1998–2018). European Science Editing, 46, e51002.
Almeida, R., de Albuquerque Rocha, K., Catelani, F., Fontes-Pereira, A., y Vasconcelos, S.(2016). Plagiarism Allegations Account for Most Retractions in Major Latin American/Caribbean Databases. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22, 1447–1456.
Aspura, M., Noorhidawati, A., y Abrizah, A. (2018). An analysis of Malaysian retracted papers: Misconduct or mistakes? Scientometrics, 115, 1315–1328.
Bar-Ilan, J., y Halevi, G. (2018). Temporal characteristics of retracted Articles. Scientometrics, 116, 1771-1783.
Bennet, C., Chambers, L., Al-Hafez, L., Michener, Ch., Falcone, T., Yao, M., y Berghella, V. (2020). Retracted articles in the obstetrics literature: lessons from the past to change the future. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2, 100201.
Bolland, M., Grey, A., y Avenell, A. (2021). Citation of retracted publications: A challenging Problem. Accountability in Research, 29(1), 18-25.
Cabanac, G., y Labbé, C. (2021). Prevalence of nonsensical algorithmically generated papers in the scientific literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 72(12), 1461–1476.
Campos-Varela, I., y Ruano-Raviña, A. (2019). Misconduct as the main cause for retraction. A descriptive study of retracted publications and their authors. Gaceta Sanitaria, 33(4), 356360.
Campos-Varela, I., Villaverde-Castañeda, R., y Ruano-Raviña, A. (2020). Retraction of publications: a study of biomedical journals retracting publications based on impact factor and journal category. Gaceta Sanitaria, 34(5), 430-434.
Candal-Pedreira, C., Ross, J., Ruano-Raviña, A., Egilman, D., Fernández, E. y Pérez-Ríos, M. (2022a). Retracted papers originating from paper mills: cross sectional study. BMJ, 28(379), e071517.
Candal-Pedreira, C., Ruano-Ravina, A., Rey-Brandariz, J., Mourino, N., Ravara, S., Aguiar, P., y Pérez-Ríos, M. (2022b). Evolution and characterization of health sciences paper retractions in Brazil and Portugal. Accountability in Research, 30(8), 725–742.
Chen, W., Xing, Q., Wang, H., y Wang, T. (2018). Retracted publications in the biomedical literatura with authors from mainland China. Scientometrics, 114, 217–227.
Cobey, K., Lalu, M., Skidmore, B., Ahmadzai, N., Grudniewicz, A., y Moher D. (2018). What is a predatory journal? A scoping review. F1000Res, 4(7),1001.
Dal-Ré, R. (2020). Analysis of biomedical Spanish articles retracted between 1970 and 2018. Medicina Clínica, 154(4), 125-130.
Dave, L., y Lipner, S. (2023). Retractions of dermatology articles are uncommon in the Retraction Watch database 1994–2021. Archives of Dermatological Research, 315(8), 2459-2461.
Davies, B., y Felappi, G. (2017). Publish or Perish. Metaphilosophy, 48(5), 745-761.
De Meis, L., Velloso, A., Lannes, D., Carmo, MS., y de Meis, C. (2023). The growing competition in Brazilian science: rites of passage, stress and burnout. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, 36, 1135–1141.
De Rond, M., y Miller, A. (2005). Publish or Perish: Bane or Boon of Academic Life? Journal of Management Inquiry. 14(4), 321-329.
Decullier, E., Samson, G., y Huot L. (2012). Rétractations pour erreur et pour fraude. La Presse Medicale, 41(9), 847-852.
Elango, B., Kozak, M., y Rajendra, P. (2019). Analysis of retractions in Indian Science. Scientometrics, 119(2), 1081-1094.
Eldakar, MAM., y Shehata, AMK. (2023). A bibliometric study of article retractions in technology fields in developing economies countries. Scientometrics, 128, 6047–6083.
Else, H., y Van Noorden. (2011). The fight against fake-paper factories that churn out sham science. Nature, 591(7851), 516–519.
Erfanmanesh, M., y Morovati, M. (2019), Published errors and errata in library and information science journals. Collection and Curation, 38(3), 61-67.
Fanelli, D. (2013). Why Growing Retractions Are (Mostly) a Good Sign. PLOS Medicine, 10(12), e1001563.
Fanelli, D. (2014). Publishing: Rise in retractions is a signal of integrity. Nature, 1, 509(33).
Fanelli, D., Wong, J., y Moher, D. (2022). What difference might retractions make? An estimate of the potential epistemic cost of retractions on meta-analyses. Accountability in Research, 29(7), 442–459.
Fang, F., Steen, G., y Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. PNAS, 109(42), 17028–17033.
Fay, M. P., y Proschan, M. A. (2010). Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney or t-test? On assumptions for hypothesis tests and multiple interpretations of decision rules. Statistics Surveys, 4, 1-39.
Freijedo-Farinas, F., Ruano-Raviña, A., Pérez-Ríos, M., Ross, J., y Candal-Pedreira, C. 2024). Biomedical retractions due to misconduct in Europe: characterization and trends in the last 20 years. Scientometrics, 129, 2867–2882.
Ghorbi, A., Fazeli-Varzaneg, M., Ghaderi-Azad, E., Ausloos, M., y Kozak, M. (2021). Retracted papers by Iranian authors: causes, journals, time lags, affiliations, collaborations. Scientometrics, 126, 7351–7371.
Gibbons, J. D., y Chakraborti, S. (2011). Nonparametric statistical inference. Springer Science & Business Media.
Grieneisen, M., y Zhang, M. (2012). A Comprehensive Survey of Retracted Articles from the Scholarly Literature. PLOS One, 7(10), e44118.
Halevi, G. (2020). Why Articles in Arts and Humanities Are Being Retracted? Scientometrics, 36, 55-62.
Hasselmann, F., Graf, V., Schimidt, M., y Reinhart, M. (2017). The visibility of scientific misconduct: A review of the literature on retracted journal Articles. Current Sociology Review, 65(6), 814-845.
Herndon, N. (2016). Research Fraud and the Publish or Perish World of Academia. Journal of Marketing Channels, 23(3), 91–96.
Herrera-Añazco, P., Fernandez-Guzmán, D., Barriga-Chambi, F., Benites-Meza, J., CairaChuquineyra, B., y Benites-Zapata, A. (2023). Retraction of health science articles by researchers in Latin America and the Caribbean: A scoping review. Developing World Bioethics, 9.
Joaquim, S., Longhini, J., y Palese, A. (2022). What can we learn from retracted studies in the nursing field in the last 20 years? Findings from a scoping review. Acta Biomedica, 93(S2), e2022193.
Kamali, N., Abadi, A., y Rahimi, F. (2020). Plagiarism, fake peer-review, and duplication: predominant reasons underlying retractions of Iran-affiliated scientific papers. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(6), 3455–3463.
Kara-Junior, N. (2024). The open access and dissemination of predatory journals. Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia, 87(3), e2024-1009.
Karabag, S., y Berggren, C. (2012). Retraction, dishonesty and plagiarism: Analysis of a crucial issue for academic publishing, and the inadequate responses from leading journals in economics and management disciplines. Journal of Applied Economics and Business Research, 2(3), 172–183.
King, E., Orabsky, I., Sachs, T., Farber, A., Flynn, A., Kalish, J., y Siracuse, J. (2018). Analysis of retracted articles in the surgical literature. The American Journal of Surgery, 216, 851855.
Labbé, C., y Labbé, D. (2013). Publicaciones duplicadas y falsas en la literatura científica: ¿cuántos artículos de SCIgen hay en informática?. Scientometrics, 94, 379–396.
Levett, J., Elkaim, L., Alotaibi, N., Weber, M., Dea, N., y Abd-El-Barr, M. (2023). Publication retraction in spine surgery: a systematic review. European Spine Journal, 32, 3704–3712.
Lei, L., y Zhang, Y. (2018). Lack of Improvement in Scientific Integrity: An Analysis of WoS Retractions by Chinese Researchers. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(5), 1409-1420.
Lei, L., Du, L., Dong, M., y Liu X. (2024). Global retractions due to randomly generated content: Characterization and trends. Scientometrics. 129, 7943-7958.
Liu, W., y Lei, L. (2021). Retractions in the Middle East from 1999 to 2018: a bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 126, 4687-4700.
Mann, H. B., y Whitney, D. R. (1947). On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 18(1), 50-60.
Marco-Cuenca, G., Salvador-Oliván, J., y Arquero-Avilés, R. (2019). Ética en la publicación científica biomédica. Revisión de las publicaciones retractadas en España. El profesional de la información, 28(2), e280222.
Marco-Cuenca, G., Salvador-Oliván, J., y Arquero-Avilés, R. (2021). Fraud in scientific publications in the European Union. An analysis through their retractions. Scientometrics, 126, 5143-5164.
Moylan, E., y Kowalczuk, M. (2016). Why articles are retracted: a retrospective cross-sectional study of retraction notices at BioMed Central. BMJ Open, 6, e012047.
Nachar, N. (2008). The Mann-Whitney U: A test for assessing whether two independent samples come from the same distribution. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4(1), 13-20.
Nath, S., Marcus, S., y Druss, B. (2006). Retractions in the research literature: misconduct or mistakes? The Medical Journal of Australia, 185(3), 152-154.
Pérez-Neri, I., Pineda, C., y Sandoval, H. (2022). Threats to scholarly research integrity arising from paper mills: a rapid scoping review. Clinical Rheumatology, 41, 2241–2248.
Quintans-Júnior, L. J., y Martins-Filho, P. R. (2024). Oops! ... They did it again - The reasons behind so many retractions of scientific articles. Archives of Medical Research, 55(7), 103056.
Redman, B., Yarandi, H., y Merz, J. (2008). Empirical developments in Retraction. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34, 807-809.
Rivera, I., y Teixeira da Silva, J. (2021). Retractions, Fake Peer Reviews, and Paper Mills. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 36(24), e165.
Rodríguez, F., Gupta, P., Khan, A., Chatterjee, T., Sandhu, N., y Gupta, L. (2023). The Cultural Context of Plagiarism and Research Misconduct in the Asian Region. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 38(12), e88.
Rossow, T., Matsau, L., y Van Zyl, Ch. (2020). An Analysis of Retracted Articles with Authors or Co-authors from the African Region: Possible Implications for Training and Awareness Raising. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics. 15(5), 478-493.
Rubbo, P., Helmann, C., Santos, C., y Pilatti, L. (2017). Retractions in the engineering field: A study on the web of science database. Ethics & Behavior, 29(2), 141–155.
Rubbo, P., Pilatti, L., y Picinin, C. (2018). Citation of retracted articles in engineering: A study of the web of science database. Ethics & Behavior, 29(8), 661–679.
Santos-d’Amorim, K., Correia, A., Miranda, M., y Santa-Cruz, P. (2021). Reasons and implications of retracted articles in Brazil. Transinformação, 33, e210001.
Santos-d’Amorim, K., Wang, T., Lund, B., y Dos Santos, R. (2024). From plagiarism to scientific paper mills: a profile of retracted articles within the SciELO Brazil collection. Ethics & Behavior, 34(1), 40-57.
Shimray, S., Tiwari, S., y Ramaiah, Ch. (2023). Retractions covered by retraction watch from 2017 to 2022: a perspective from Indian researchers. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication.
Stavale, R., Ferreira, G., Martins, J., Zicker, F., Garbi, M., De Oliveira, C., y Guilhem D. (2019). Research misconduct in health and life sciences research: A systematic review of retracted literature from Brazilian institutions. PLOS One, 14(4), e0214272
Teen, G., Casadevall, A., y Fang F. (2013). Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? PLOS ONE, 8(7), e68397.
Teixeira da Silva, J., y Bornemann-Cimenti, H. (2017). Why do some retracted papers continue to be cited? Scientometrics,110, 365–370.
Teixeira da Silva J. (2020). Evolution in the Correction of the Literature: Preprints, Manuscript Versioning, Error Amendment, and Retract and Replace. Preprints.org.
Van Dalen, H. (2021). How the publish-or-perish principle divides a science: the case of economists. Scientometrics, Van Noorden, R. (2011). Science publishing: The trouble with retractions. Nature, 5(478), 26-28.
Vuong, Q. H., Nguyen, T. K., La, V. P., y Ho, M. T. (2020). Retracted papers and the scientific impact: A case study. Scientometrics, 125(3), 2565-2587
Wiley. (2023). Tackling publication manipulation at scale: Hindawi’s journey and lessons for academic publishing. Disponible en: https://www.wiley.com/enus/network/publishing/research-publishing/open-access/hindawi-publicationmanipulation-whitepaper
Wray, K., y Andersen, L. (2018). Retractions in Science. Scientometrics, 117,2009–2019.
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2026 Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC)
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
© CSIC. Los originales publicados en las ediciones impresa y electrónica de esta Revista son propiedad del Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, siendo necesario citar la procedencia en cualquier reproducción parcial o total.
Salvo indicación contraria, todos los contenidos de la edición electrónica se distribuyen bajo una licencia de uso y distribución “Creative Commons Reconocimiento 4.0 Internacional ” (CC BY 4.0). Consulte la versión informativa y el texto legal de la licencia. Esta circunstancia ha de hacerse constar expresamente de esta forma cuando sea necesario.
No se autoriza el depósito en repositorios, páginas web personales o similares de cualquier otra versión distinta a la publicada por el editor.
