Scholarlink

<p>Retractions are a relevant mechanism for ensuring the reliability of scientific literature. Nevertheless, the incidence of retractions can evidence specific problems in the publishing process. In this study, we analyse the distribution of retractions across access types and disciplinary domains over time, focusing on cases including peer review issues (i.e., manipulation or irregularities in the evaluation process), and their independence from Article Processing Charges (APC). Based on data from Retraction Watch Database and OpenAlex, we analyse retractions due to peer review issues by field, topic, and OA type for the 2014–2024 period. We matched 31,910 retracted publications from OpenAlex with Retraction Watch data. Gold OA publications show the highest overall retraction rate with 12.63 retractions per 10,000 items (14,742 over 11,658,281 items), while Bronze and Hybrid models show lower rates (4.48 and 4.15 respectively). These rates exceed those in Diamond, Green, and Closed access models. However, differences are not consistent across the period: prior to 2020, APC-based models had similar retraction rates to other access types. Disciplinary differences are also present. Life Sciences show the highest overall retraction rate, while Social and Physical Sciences present the highest proportions of retractions involving peer review issues. These findings support targeted reforms in editorial workflows, and highlight the importance of contextualizing retraction data within broader institutional and disciplinary frameworks.</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

An analysis of the relationship between access models and retractions with peer review issues (2014–2024)

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月28日

查看全文
  • Jorge Mañana-Rodríguez,
  • Begoña Granadino-Goenechea,
  • Núria Bautista-Puig

摘要

Retractions are a relevant mechanism for ensuring the reliability of scientific literature. Nevertheless, the incidence of retractions can evidence specific problems in the publishing process. In this study, we analyse the distribution of retractions across access types and disciplinary domains over time, focusing on cases including peer review issues (i.e., manipulation or irregularities in the evaluation process), and their independence from Article Processing Charges (APC). Based on data from Retraction Watch Database and OpenAlex, we analyse retractions due to peer review issues by field, topic, and OA type for the 2014–2024 period. We matched 31,910 retracted publications from OpenAlex with Retraction Watch data. Gold OA publications show the highest overall retraction rate with 12.63 retractions per 10,000 items (14,742 over 11,658,281 items), while Bronze and Hybrid models show lower rates (4.48 and 4.15 respectively). These rates exceed those in Diamond, Green, and Closed access models. However, differences are not consistent across the period: prior to 2020, APC-based models had similar retraction rates to other access types. Disciplinary differences are also present. Life Sciences show the highest overall retraction rate, while Social and Physical Sciences present the highest proportions of retractions involving peer review issues. These findings support targeted reforms in editorial workflows, and highlight the importance of contextualizing retraction data within broader institutional and disciplinary frameworks.