Understanding Research Integrity: Analysis of Retracted Health Sciences Articles from Jordanian Institutes

الملخص

Background: The recent attention highlighted on healthcare research has pressured researchers to publish high volume of articles to enhance personal benefits, forcing some of them to use unethical practices to withstand in a such competitive environment, falling in “publish or perish” pressure. Consequently, there was a global rise in the number of articles retractions, which is one of the parameters utilized in "RI² Research Integrity Risk Index". Most  Jordanian universities were classified as red-flag according to RI². Our objective is to analyze retracted Jordanian-affiliated health-sciences articles to help Jordanian institutions to assess and prevent unethical practices and improve integrity policies. 

Methods: All retracted health-sciences articles with at least one affiliation with a Jordanian institute were extracted from the Retraction Watch Database. The articles were double screened for information about the number of Jordanian authors and their affiliations, along with information from the database. Retraction notes were reviewed to identify and classify the retraction reason(s). Authors were further classified by academic status. Descriptive statistics and data analysis were done using Microsoft Power BI.

Results: A total of eighty-two articles were included; most were original research (n=62). Sixty-two papers involved international coauthors, and 48 were first-authored by Jordan-affiliated researchers. Out of total of 537 total authors, 143 were affiliated with Jordanian institutes. Retractions were heavily time-clustered, with 81.7% (n=67) occurring in 2021–2024. At the journal level, Cureus accounted for the largest single count (n=15), most (n=12) were case reports. Number of retractions per institution was as follows: Jordan University of Science and Technology (n=22), Amman Arab University (n=12), Ajloun National University (n=10), and the University of Jordan (n=9). We identified 16 retractions involving undergraduate authors without documented same-institution faculty supervision; 12 of which were case reports. Retractions were attributed to inadequate peer review (n=45), concerns about content/data (n=43), followed by paper-mill/authorship-for-sale (n=15), plagiarism (n=6), publisher error (n=4) and approval issues (n=2). And "others" (n=6).

Conclusions: The study analyzed retracted health research in Jordan to uncover the main causes and suggest ways to strengthen research integrity. It found a marked rise in retractions after 2020 and highlighted links with student projects and open-access publishing. The authors recommend using the RI² index as an early warning tool (not a stigma) and encouraging quality-over-quantity rewards to reduce pressure on researchers and students.