Scholarlink

<p>This study examines the retraction patterns in Saudi Arabian research from 2014 to 2023. A bibliometric analysis of 343,588 Scopus-indexed publications reveals a sharp rise in retractions starting in 2020, reaching a peak of 7.5 retractions per thousand publications (7.5‰) in 2022. This rate is 2 to 3 times greater than the contemporaneous rates observed in China (3.9‰) and India (2.3‰). Notably, 78% of retractions involved internationally co-authored works, with these collaborations exhibiting retraction rates up to 13 times higher than the baseline rates of the partner countries. Notably, 66% of retracted publications had a corresponding author with a foreign affiliation, and 64% had a foreign-affiliated first author. Pakistan, India, Egypt, and China were the most frequent co-authoring countries in retracted papers. Compromised peer review, paper mills, and computer-generated content were identified as the primary causes. Strikingly, in 2022, 100% of Saudi retractions due to compromised peer review and 95% of those linked to paper mills originated from Hindawi journals. The temporal alignment between Saudi Arabia’s incentive-driven research policies and the surge in retractions suggests underlying systemic integrity issues. To address this, we propose a five-point reform agenda focusing on incentive structures, collaborative safeguards, institutional oversight, publisher accountability, and global coordination against paper mills.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The retraction problem in collaborations with Saudi Arabia: evidence from 2014–2023

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月22日

查看全文
  • Ridha Mhamdi

摘要

This study examines the retraction patterns in Saudi Arabian research from 2014 to 2023. A bibliometric analysis of 343,588 Scopus-indexed publications reveals a sharp rise in retractions starting in 2020, reaching a peak of 7.5 retractions per thousand publications (7.5‰) in 2022. This rate is 2 to 3 times greater than the contemporaneous rates observed in China (3.9‰) and India (2.3‰). Notably, 78% of retractions involved internationally co-authored works, with these collaborations exhibiting retraction rates up to 13 times higher than the baseline rates of the partner countries. Notably, 66% of retracted publications had a corresponding author with a foreign affiliation, and 64% had a foreign-affiliated first author. Pakistan, India, Egypt, and China were the most frequent co-authoring countries in retracted papers. Compromised peer review, paper mills, and computer-generated content were identified as the primary causes. Strikingly, in 2022, 100% of Saudi retractions due to compromised peer review and 95% of those linked to paper mills originated from Hindawi journals. The temporal alignment between Saudi Arabia’s incentive-driven research policies and the surge in retractions suggests underlying systemic integrity issues. To address this, we propose a five-point reform agenda focusing on incentive structures, collaborative safeguards, institutional oversight, publisher accountability, and global coordination against paper mills.