A Novel Rubric for Rating the Quality of Retraction Notices

Bilbrey, Emma A.; O'Dell, Natalie; Creamer, Jonathan

doi:10.3390/publications2010014

Cited by 30 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 15 publications

(22 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…If further information of the retraction notice is to be incorporated into the analysis or for a control of the respective completeness, an exact linking has to be established, which so far has not been done algorithmically. Fanelli () and Bilbrey, O'Dell, and Creamer () limit their analyses to the level of RoPs; He () uses both the RoP and RP corpora separately for different sections of the analysis. Chen et al () extract the publication year of the retracting paper from the numerical reference in the “retracted” title phrase; Lu, Jin, Uzzi, and Jones () compare the respective RoP and RP lists.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An analysis of the validity of retraction annotation in pubmed and the web of science

Schmidt

2017

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on scientific misconduct relies increasingly on retractions of articles. An interdisciplinary line of research has been established that empirically assesses the phenomenon of scientific misconduct using information on retractions, and thus aims to shed light on aspects of misconduct that previously were hidden. However, comparability and interpretability of studies are to a certain extent impeded by an absence of standards in corpus delineation and by the fact that the validity of this empirical data basis has never been systematically scrutinized. This article assesses the conceptual and empirical delineation of retractions against related publication types through a comparative analysis of the coverage and consistency of retraction annotation in the databases PubMed and the Web of Science (WoS), which are both commonly used for empicial studies on retractions. The searching and linking approaches of the WoS were subsequently evaluated. The results indicate that a considerable number of PubMed retracted publications and retractions are not labeled as such in the WoS or are indistinguishable from corrections, which is highly relevant for corpus and sample strategies in the WoS.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this comparison, I omittedBilbrey, O'Dell, and Creamer (2014) because of the unclear specification as well asGrieneisen and Zhang (2012) because in the latter study retractions and retracted publications are retrieved by a combined single search strategy.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

An analysis of the validity of retraction annotation in pubmed and the web of science

Schmidt

2017

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our review of the literature on RNs has located no empirical study that focuses squarely on the determination of RN authorship. The few studies that needed to ascertain RN authorship to address their research questions unproblematically treated retraction requestors and/or performers as RN authors [19,20]. This conflation of retraction authorities and RN authors is inaccurate in identifying authorship at best, and may obscure important ethical issues at worst.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retraction Notices: Who Authored Them?

2018

Publications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Unlike other academic publications whose authorship is eagerly claimed, the provenance of retraction notices (RNs) is often obscured presumably because the retraction of published research is associated with undesirable behavior and consequently carries negative consequences for the individuals involved. The ambiguity of authorship, however, has serious ethical ramifications and creates methodological problems for research on RNs that requires clear authorship attribution. This article reports a study conducted to identify RN textual features that can be used to disambiguate obscured authorship, ascertain the extent of authorship evasion in RNs from two disciplinary clusters, and determine if the disciplines varied in the distributions of different types of RN authorship. Drawing on a corpus of 370 RNs archived in the Web of Science for the hard discipline of Cell Biology and the soft disciplines of Business, Finance, and Management, this study has identified 25 types of textual markers that can be used to disambiguate authorship, and revealed that only 25.68% of the RNs could be unambiguously attributed to authors of the retracted articles alone or jointly and that authorship could not be determined for 28.92% of the RNs. Furthermore, the study has found marked disciplinary differences in the different categories of RN authorship. These results point to the need for more explicit editorial requirements about RN authorship and their strict enforcement.

show abstract

“…The retraction notices consider being a crucial issue in the integrity of the scientific record. Therefore, they must be exact and coherent [17]. A written Guideline on Retractions from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) says: 'The intention of the retraction is to correct the literature and ensure its integrity rather than to punish authors who misbehave' [18].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Multiple Publications: The Main Reason for the Retraction of Papers in Computer Science

Al-Hidabi

Teh

2018

Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper intends to review the reasons for the retraction over the last decade. The paper particularly aims at reviewing these reasons with reference to computer science field to assist authors in comprehending the style of writing. To do that, a total of thirty-six retracted papers found on the Web of Science within Jan 2007 through July 2017 are explored. Given the retraction notices which are based on ten common reasons, this paper classifies the two main categories, namely random and nonrandom retraction. Retraction due to the duplication of publications scored the highest proportion of all other reasons reviewed. I. INTRODUCTION Over the years, Steen [1]; Wager and Williams [2]; Ferric C Fang [3]; M. L. Grieneisen and M. Zhang [4]; M. Zhang and M. L. Grieneisen [5]; Daniele Fanelli [6]; E Carafoli [7] Andrew B. Rosenkrantz [8]; and Philippe Mongeon [9] have highlighted that retraction has gradually increased [1]-[9]. Retraction is the act of taking out a paper from scientific publication. The retracted paper defined by the Web of Science (WoS) is "An article that has been withdrawn by an author, institution, editor or a publisher because of an error of unsubstantiated data" 2. Ferric C Fang [3] reasons the Retractions could appear, due to misconduct, fraud, a scientific error, plagiarism, duplicate publication, and so on [3]. It could also be because of faked peer reviews [10]. When this happens, editors will send a notice of concern in a bid for initiating a case of investigation in this respect [11]. Although there is a large proportion of retraction review available in the literature, there has not been much work focusing on the reasons for the act of retraction in computer science. In this paper, an attempt has been done to analyse all computer science retracted papers that were indexed in the WoS between Jan 2007 and July 2017. The pertinent works have taken diverse perspectives on different disciplines. During the last decade, up to 31 th of July 2017, the total number of retracted papers reached 36 in seven areas of computer science. Tentative results have shown that at this current stage, the highest number recorded and contributed to computer science disciplinary accounts for a percentage of 1 This is a pre-print of an in-press article to be published in Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing by Springer Nature

show abstract

A Novel Rubric for Rating the Quality of Retraction Notices

Cited by 30 publications

References 15 publications

An analysis of the validity of retraction annotation in pubmed and the web of science

An analysis of the validity of retraction annotation in pubmed and the web of science

Retraction Notices: Who Authored Them?

Multiple Publications: The Main Reason for the Retraction of Papers in Computer Science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About