Background: Retraction is a correction process for the scientific literature that acts as a barrier to the dissemination of articles that have serious faults or misleading data. The purpose of this study was to investigate the characteristics of retracted papers from Kazakhstan. Methods: Utilizing data from Retraction Watch, this cross-sectional descriptive analysis documented all retracted papers from Kazakhstan without regard to publication dates. The following data were recorded: publication title, DOI number, number of authors, publication date, retraction date, source, publication type, subject category of publication, collaborating country, and retraction reason. Source index status, Scopus citation value, and Altmetric Attention Score were obtained. Results: Following the search, a total of 92 retracted papers were discovered. One duplicate article was excluded, leaving 91 publications for analysis. Most articles were retracted in 2022 (n = 22) and 2018 (n = 19). Among the identified publications, 49 (53.9%) were research articles, 39 (42.9%) were conference papers, 2 (2.2%) were review articles, and 1 (1.1%) was a book chapter. Russia (n = 24) and China (n = 5) were the most collaborative countries in the retracted publications. Fake-biased peer review (n = 38), plagiarism (n = 25), and duplication (n = 14) were the leading causes of retraction. Conclusion The vast majority of the publications were research articles and conference papers.Russia was the leading collaborative country. The most prominent retraction reasons were fakebiased peer review, plagiarism, and duplication. Efforts to raise researchers’ understanding of the grounds for retraction and ethical research techniques are required in Kazakhstan.

Background: Retraction is an essential procedure for correcting scientific literature and informing readers about articles containing significant errors or omissions. Ethical violations are one of the significant triggers of the retraction process. The objective of this study was to evaluate the characteristics of retracted articles in the medical literature due to ethical violations. Methods: The Retraction Watch Database was utilized for this descriptive study. The ‘ethical violations’ and ‘medicine’ options were chosen. The date range was 2010 to 2023. The collected data included the number of authors, the date of publication and retraction, the journal of publication, the indexing status of the journal, the country of the corresponding author, the subject area of the article, and the particular retraction reasons. Results: A total of 177 articles were analyzed. The most retractions were detected in 2019 (n = 29) and 2012 (n = 28). The median time period between the articles’ first publication date and the date of retraction was 647 (0–4,295) days. The leading countries were China (n = 47), USA (n = 25), South Korea (n = 23), Iran (n = 14), and India (n = 12). The main causes of retraction were ethical approval issues (n = 65), data-related concerns (n = 51), informed consent issues (n = 45), and fake-biased peer review (n = 30). Conclusion Unethical behavior is one of the most significant obstacles to scientific advancement. Obtaining appropriate ethics committee approvals and informed consent forms is crucial in ensuring the ethical conduct of medical research. It is the responsibility of journal editors to ensure that raw data is controlled and peer review processes are conducted effectively. It is essential to educate young researchers on unethical practices and the negative outcomes that may result from them.

The concept of research integrity (RI) refers to a set of moral and ethical standards that serve as the foundation for the execution of research activities. Integrity in research is the incorporation of principles of honesty, transparency, and respect for ethical standards and norms throughout all stages of the research endeavor, encompassing study design, data collecting, analysis, reporting, and publishing. The preservation of RI is of utmost importance to uphold the credibility and amplify the influence of scientific research while also preventing and dealing with instances of scientific misconduct. Researchers, institutions, journals, and readers share responsibilities for preserving RI. Researchers must adhere to the highest ethical standards. Institutions have a role in establishing an atmosphere that supports integrity ideals while also providing useful guidance, instruction, and assistance to researchers. Editors and reviewers act as protectors, upholding quality and ethical standards in the dissemination of research results through publishing. Readers play a key role in the detection and reporting of fraudulent activity by critically evaluating content. The struggle against scientific misconduct has multiple dimensions and is continuous. It requires a collaborative effort and adherence to the principles of honesty, transparency, and rigorous science. By supporting a culture of RI, the scientific community may preserve its core principles and continue to contribute appropriately to society’s well-being. It not only aids present research but also lays the foundation for future scientific advancements.

Background: Public health ethics (PHE) is a dynamic area within bioethics that addresses the complex moral implications of public health measures in the face of growing health threats.YouTube is a powerful and widely used platform for disseminating health-related information.The primary objective of this study is to assess videos related to PHE on YouTube. The aim is to gauge the extent of misinformation in collecting PHE videos on the platform. Methods: On October 25, 2023, a thorough investigation on YouTube was undertaken, employing pre-determined search phrases involving ‘public health,’ ‘healthcare,’ ‘health services administration,’ and ‘health policy and ethics.’ The research encompassed a total of 137 videos that were selected according to strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. The videos were evaluated using the Global Quality Scale to measure quality and the modified DISCERN tool to evaluate reliability. The researchers identified video sources and compared several video attributes across different quality groups. Results: A total of 137 videos were analyzed, and 65 (47.45%) were classified as high quality, 52 (37.23%) as moderate quality, and 21 (15.32%) as low quality. In high-quality videos, academic, government, physician, and university-hospital sources predominated, whereas Internet users and news sources were connected with low-quality videos. Significant differences in DISCERN score, per day views, likes, and comments were seen across the quality groups (P = 0.001 for views per day and P = 0.001 for other characteristics). According to the findings, low-quality videos had higher median values for daily views, likes, and comments. Conclusion Although nearly half of the videos were high-quality, low-quality videos attracted greater attention. Critical contributors to high-quality videos included academic, government, physician, and university-hospital sources. The findings highlight the importance of quality control methods on social media platforms and strategies to direct users to trustworthy health information. Authors should prioritize appropriate citations and evaluate YouTube and other comparable platforms for potential promotional low-quality information.