The Landscape of problematic papers in the field of non-coding RNA

Abstract

Retractions have increased sharply in recent years, alongside a growing number of papers that receive post-publication comments questioning their reliability (commented papers). Together, retracted and commented papers undermine the credibility of scientific research and may also threaten public health. In this study, we examine problematic papers in the field of non-coding RNA (ncRNA) from multiple perspectives to identify common patterns and inform strategies for addressing large-scale fraudulent publications. We find that studies on under-investigated ncRNAs are more likely to become problematic papers. These papers often show substantial textual similarity, and many additional papers with similar text also display suspicious image duplication. Healthcare institutions, particularly those with lower publication output, appear especially vulnerable to producing such papers. Most problematic papers are concentrated in a small set of journals, many of which do not adequately address concerns raised after publication. Overall, our findings indicate that a substantial number of problematic papers may remain undetected and that their shared characteristics can support more effective strategies for identifying and curbing large-scale fraudulent publications.