University of Pennsylvania Library / Key: Academic Retractions

H.L. Cu Si

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/pkf3u

2021-03-25

Abstract:Vuong, Q. H. (2020). Reform retractions to make them more transparent. Nature, 582(7811), 149. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-01694-x

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Princeton University Library / Key: Academic Retractions

H.L. Cu Si

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/7t8kq

2021-03-25

Abstract:Vuong, Q. H. (2020). Reform retractions to make them more transparent. Nature, 582(7811), 149. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-01694-x
University of Cambridge Library / Key: Academic Retractions

H.L. Cu Si

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/sjuwn

2021-03-25

Abstract:Vuong, Q. H. (2020). Reform retractions to make them more transparent. Nature, 582(7811), 149. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-01694-x
Yale University Library / Key: Academic Retractions

H.L. Cu Si

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/2dpsa

2021-03-25

Abstract:Vuong, Q. H. (2020). Reform retractions to make them more transparent. Nature, 582(7811), 149. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-01694-x
Stanford University Library / Key: Academic Retractions

H.L. Cu Si

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/pt6yb

2021-03-25

Abstract:Vuong, Q. H. (2020). Reform retractions to make them more transparent. Nature, 582(7811), 149. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-01694-x
MIT Libraries / Key: Academic Retractions

H.L. Cu Si

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/bxq6h

2021-03-25

Abstract:Vuong, Q. H. (2020). Reform retractions to make them more transparent. Nature, 582(7811), 149. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-01694-x
Cornell University Library Catalog / Key: Academic Retractions

H.L. Cu Si

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/4ghxs

2021-03-25

Abstract:Vuong, Q. H. (2020). Reform retractions to make them more transparent. Nature, 582(7811), 149. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-01694-x
Dartmouth Library Catalog / Key: Academic Retractions

H.L. Cu Si

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/82mpb

2021-03-25

Abstract:Vuong, Q. H. (2020). Reform retractions to make them more transparent. Nature, 582(7811), 149. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-01694-x
NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY / KEY: ACADEMIC RETRACTIONS

H.L. Cu Si

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/72dcy

2021-03-25

Abstract:Vuong, Q. H. (2020). Reform retractions to make them more transparent. Nature, 582(7811), 149. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-01694-x
Harvard University HOLLIS / KEY: ACADEMIC RETRACTIONS

H.L. Cu Si

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/43anv

2021-03-25

Abstract:Vuong, Q. H. (2020). Reform retractions to make them more transparent. Nature, 582(7811), 149. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-01694-x
KASETSART UNIVERSITY LIBRARY / KEY: ACADEMIC RETRACTIONS

H.L. Cu Si

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/73rm4

2021-03-25

Abstract:Vuong, Q. H. (2020). Reform retractions to make them more transparent. Nature, 582(7811), 149. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-01694-x
Singapore Management University / KEY: ACADEMIC RETRACTIONS

H.L. Cu Si

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/hqukc

2021-03-25

Abstract:Vuong, Q. H. (2020). Reform retractions to make them more transparent. Nature, 582(7811), 149. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-01694-x
Retraction: the "other Face" of Research Collaboration.

Li Tang,Guangyuan Hu,Yang Sui,Yuhan Yang,Cong Cao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00209-1

2017-01-01

Abstract:The last two decades have witnessed the rising prevalence of both co-publishing and retraction. Focusing on research collaboration, this paper utilizes a unique dataset to investigate factors contributing to retraction probability and elapsed time between publication and retraction. Data analysis reveals that the majority of retracted papers are multi-authored and that repeat offenders are collaboration prone. Yet, all things being equal, collaboration, in and of itself, does not increase the likelihood of producing flawed or fraudulent research, at least in the form of retraction. That holds for all retractions and also retractions due to falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism (FFP). The research also finds that publications with authors from elite universities are less likely to be retracted, which is particularly true for retractions due to FFP. China stands out with the fastest retracting speed compared to other countries. Possible explanations, limitations, and policy implications are also discussed.
Collaboration and Its Influence on Retraction Based on Retracted Publications During 1978–2017

Zhang Qin,Abraham Juneman,Fu Hui-Zhen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03636-w

2020-01-01

Abstract:Scientific collaboration has considerably grown in recent years, and has been recognized as a positive factor for research productivity and quality. This study is aimed at exploring the collaboration in retracted publications and the influence on different kinds of scientific misbehaviors based on 4842 retracted publications in Web of Science Core Collection from 1978 to 2017. Search results showed that the proportion of international collaborations in retracted publications has fluctuated at around 20% in the past 17 years, and different collaboration patterns of major countries are revealed. The USA and China contributed to more than half of all retracted publications, while retraction rate of Chinese papers was three times higher compared to papers from the USA. A negative correlation between the proportion of internationally collaborative publications and the retraction rate was found. Countries involved in more international collaborations tend to have lower retraction rates. Also, the occurrences of plagiarism was found to be lower when a paper is contributed by more authors, while falsification or manipulation, errors or unreliable results appeared more frequently under the same condition. Conclusions are made with a focus on the need for more actions to strengthen the scientific norms and integrity within collaborative groups.
Productivity Patterns, Collaboration and Scientific Careers of Authors with Retracted Publications in Clinical Medicine

Zhang Qin,Fu Hui-Zhen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04252-y

IF: 3.801

2022-01-01

Scientometrics

Abstract:Problematic publications and scientific misconduct have raised global concern, in which the authors have played a key role. Since research misconduct occurs more frequently in the clinical medicine field, we took this field as an example to explore productivity patterns, collaboration, and scientific careers of authors at the individual level. The application of Lotka's law (C = 0.883, n = 3.597) showed a loose collaboration network and a predominant aggregation of authors with multiple retracted publications. Most authors were retracted only once while a small group of authors had most retracted publications. Authors with most retractions appeared to have stable collaboration with certain individuals. The occurrences of falsification and ethical issues increased with the higher involvement of authors with multiple retracted publications. Two typical publication patterns of retractions in different stages of scientific career have been found: (1) committing scientific misconduct in the early career, mainly for promotion, and (2) participating in scientific misconduct when mature in the career, most due to neglecting the duty as a supervisor. The team culture, regulations, publication policies, and joint efforts by the scientific community have a direct influence on the occurrences of scientific misconduct. Conclusions are made with a focus on the need for more actions to prevent scientific misconduct and to strengthen scientific norms and integrity.
Exploring the landscape of academic retractions in medicine: a comprehensive umbrella review

Yashendra Sethi,Oroshay Kaiwan,Giacomo Frati,Mariangela Peruzzi,Mattia Galli,Mario Gaudino,Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.23736/S0026-4806.24.09343-1

Abstract:Introduction: The escalating trend of academic article retractions over the last decades raises concerns about scientific integrity, but heterogeneity in retractions and reasons for them pose a major challenge. We aimed to comprehensively overview systematic reviews focusing on retractions in the biomedical literature. Evidence acquisition: We abstracted salient features and bibliometric details from shortlisted articles. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses was used for validity appraisal. Evidence synthesis: A total of 11 reviews were included, published between 2016 and 2023, and reporting on a total of 1851 retracted studies. Several major reasons for retractions were identified, spanning both misconduct (e.g., falsification, duplication, plagiarism) and non-misconduct issues (e.g., unreliable data, publishing problems). Correlates include author-related factors (number of authors, nationality) and journal-related factors (impact factor), with repeat offenders contributing significantly. Impacts of retractions is profound, affecting scholarly credibility, public trust, and resource utilization. Conclusions: In order to prevent retractions and amend their adverse effects, rigorous and transparent reporting standards, enhanced training in research ethics, strengthened peer review processes, and the establishment of collaborative and integrated research integrity offices are proposed.
The Influence of Open Access on the Academic Purification Effect of Retracted Publications: A Causal Inference Analysis

Er-te Zheng,Hui-Zhen Fu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.749

2022-01-01

Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Abstract:ABSTRACTRecently, open access has gradually become an important publishing model in scientific research, while the academic purification effect of open access on flawed publications needs to be further explored. In this study, we use the methods of entropy balancing matching (EBM) and difference in difference (DID) in causal inference to examine the academic purification effect of different open access levels. The results show that in the retraction speed, limited open access papers had the slowest retraction speed, non‐open access had the second and full open access had the fastest, reflecting the best performance of full open access in the detection of problematic papers. As for post‐retraction citation changes, the citation of limited open access papers declined slightly slower than that of non‐open access papers after retraction, while the citation of full open access papers showed an increase rather than a decrease. The next step of the research is to discover what factors may cause the above results.
China conducts first nationwide review of retractions and research misconduct

Smriti Mallapaty

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00397-x

IF: 64.8

2024-02-13

Nature

Abstract:Universities must declare all their retractions and launch investigations into misconduct cases; a Nature analysis reveals that since 2021 there have been more than 17,000 retractions with Chinese co-authors. Universities must declare all their retractions and launch investigations into misconduct cases; a Nature analysis reveals that since 2021 there have been more than 17,000 retractions with Chinese co-authors.

multidisciplinary sciences
Reliability of the primary scientific literature

A. Abeysekera

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4038/jnsfsr.v51i4.11991

2024-01-02

Journal of the National Science Foundation of Sri Lanka

Abstract:The confidence that scientists and the public have in the reliability of the primary scientific literature stems from a cardinal feature of scientific knowledge itself; that it is public knowledge open to verification by anyone independently, and that its validity does not depend upon the authority of the individual/persons reporting the knowledge. Thus, it has been the norm that extravagant claims made on deliberately falsified data (or wrongly interpreted data driven by an overabundance of enthusiasm) were rare, and exposed early on after publication. Retractions, when made by authors due to honest errors, served to enhance the confidence in scientific knowledge, and is considered a demonstration of the inherent nature of scientific knowledge to correct itself, as it progresses.However, the large number of retractions by publishers that are now being reported has made a dent in this confidence. It was recently reported in Nature that there were over 10,000 retractions in 2023. The reasons for the retractions were multifarious, and included papers identified as coming from paper mills, papers where images and data had been manipulated and papers published after fraudulent peer review.Of special interest was the observation that the largest number of retractions were from special issues related to specific topics or conference proceedings. There is a legitimate view that special issues serve a purpose and can enhance the profile of a journal. Nevertheless, it is ironical that special issues today are not special, but have become common, and have lost the original high purpose for which they were intended; to bring together a limited number of papers by established scientists on an emerging topic of relevance and current interest, which could spur on further development.Editorial boards need to be alert to the increasing amount of malpractice among unethical practitioners professing to be scientists. The COPE documents on retractions provide sound and practical guidelines to minimize the publication of dubious papers which would need to be retracted later.

multidisciplinary sciences
Visibility of retractions: a cross-sectional one-year study

Evelyne Decullier,Laure Huot,Géraldine Samson,Hervé Maisonneuve

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-6-238

2013-06-19

Abstract:Background: Retraction in Medline medical literature experienced a tenfold increase between 1999 and 2009, however retraction remains a rare event since it represents 0.02% of publications. Retractions used to be handled following informal practices until they were formalized in 2009 by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The objective of our study was to describe the compliance to these guidelines. Methods: All retractions published in 2008 were identified using the Medline publication type "retraction of publication". The notices of retraction and the original articles were retrieved. For each retraction, we identified the reason for retraction, the country of affiliation of the first author, the time to retraction, the impact factor of the journal and the mention of retraction on the original article. Results: Overall, 244 retractions were considered for analysis. Formal retraction notices could not be retrieved for 9. Of the 235 retractions available (96%), the reason was not detailed for 21 articles (9%). The most cited reasons were mistakes (28%), plagiarism (20%), fraud (14%) and overlap (11%). The original paper or its location was found for 233 retractions (95%). Of these, 22% were available with no mention of the retraction. Conclusion: A standard retraction form could be helpful, with a check list of major reason, leaving the editor free to provide the reader with any further information. Original articles should remain available with a clear mention of the retraction.
Readership Awareness Series – Paper 9: Retraction of a Publication

Mohammad Javed Ali,Ali Djalilian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08820538.2024.2306434

2024-01-20

Seminars in Ophthalmology

Abstract:Correcting the literature and ensuring its accuracy and reliability are essential for maintaining transparency and public trust in science. Several modalities are available to carry out correction in the literature, including errata, corrigenda, expression of concern (EoC), and retraction. Citation 1 , Citation 2 Retraction is the act of removing a fraudulent published paper from the literature to correct the literature and maintain the integrity of scientific literature. Citation 1–7 The purpose of this retraction is to alert the readership of serious flaws in data validity, interpretations, or conclusion of a specific research. Van Noorden called retractions 'science's ultimate post-publication punishment'. Citation 3 While the number of publications is steadily increasing year on year, so is the number of retractions. A study of biomedical literature has demonstrated that the mean number of publications over the last decade was 828,917 per year and a total number of retractions in the last 10 years were over 4000 and this could only be the tip of the iceberg. Citation 4 A recent analysis of 18 years found 1182 retracted papers originating from paper mills. Citation 6 The retraction of PubMed indexed articles increased from 0.002% to 0.02% from the 1980s to 2009. Citation 7 This increase in retractions can be secondary to several factors including increasing awareness, software to detect plagiarism and image manipulations, and wider reach of papers to the global audience via the internet.

ophthalmology

University of Pennsylvania Library / Key: Academic Retractions

Princeton University Library / Key: Academic Retractions

University of Cambridge Library / Key: Academic Retractions

Yale University Library / Key: Academic Retractions

Stanford University Library / Key: Academic Retractions

MIT Libraries / Key: Academic Retractions

Cornell University Library Catalog / Key: Academic Retractions

Dartmouth Library Catalog / Key: Academic Retractions

NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY / KEY: ACADEMIC RETRACTIONS

Harvard University HOLLIS / KEY: ACADEMIC RETRACTIONS

KASETSART UNIVERSITY LIBRARY / KEY: ACADEMIC RETRACTIONS

Singapore Management University / KEY: ACADEMIC RETRACTIONS

Retraction: the "other Face" of Research Collaboration.

Collaboration and Its Influence on Retraction Based on Retracted Publications During 1978–2017

Productivity Patterns, Collaboration and Scientific Careers of Authors with Retracted Publications in Clinical Medicine

Exploring the landscape of academic retractions in medicine: a comprehensive umbrella review

The Influence of Open Access on the Academic Purification Effect of Retracted Publications: A Causal Inference Analysis

China conducts first nationwide review of retractions and research misconduct

Reliability of the primary scientific literature

Visibility of retractions: a cross-sectional one-year study

Readership Awareness Series – Paper 9: Retraction of a Publication