Journals: redundant publications are bad news

Mojon-Azzi, Stefania M.; Jiang, Xiaoyi; Wagner, Ulrich; Mojon, Daniel S.

doi:10.1038/421209a

Cited by 22 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many among the 103 articles were duplicated several times. Similarly Mojon-Azzi et al 8 reported that in a study of 70 ophthalmologic journals between 1997-2000 at least 32 journals were victim to duplicate publication involving a minimum of 210 authors. The COPE* estimates that 13% of published papers are repetitive publications.…”

Section: Overlapping Publicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethical dilemmas in scientific publication: pitfalls and solutions for editors

Gollogly

Momen

2006

Rev. Saúde Pública

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Editors of scientific journals need to be conversant with the mechanisms by which scientific misconduct is amplified by publication practices. This paper provides definitions, ways to document the extent of the problem, and examples of editorial attempts to counter fraud. Fabrication, falsification, duplication, ghost authorship, gift authorship, lack of ethics approval, non-disclosure, 'salami' publication, conflicts of interest, auto-citation, duplicate submission, duplicate publications, and plagiarism are common problems. Editorial misconduct includes failure to observe due process, undue delay in reaching decisions and communicating these to authors, inappropriate review procedures, and confounding a journal's content with its advertising or promotional potential. Editors also can be admonished by their peers for failure to investigate suspected misconduct, failure to retract when indicated, and failure to abide voluntarily by the six main sources of relevant international guidelines on research, its reporting and editorial practice. Editors are in a good position to promulgate reasonable standards of practice, and can start by using consensus guidelines on publication ethics to state explicitly how their journals function. Reviewers, editors, authors and readers all then have a better chance to understand, and abide by, the rules of publishing. KEYWORDS: Publications, ethics. Authorship. Publication bias. Editorial policies. RESUMOEditores de revistas científicas precisam estar atentos aos mecanismos de disseminação de condutas inadequadas no processo de publicação. Este artigo fornece definições, formas de documentar a extensão do problema e exemplos de iniciativas para conter fraudes editorias. Fabricação, falsificação, duplicação, autoria-fantasma, autoria concedida, falta de ética na aprovação de manuscritos, não-divulgação desses fatos, publicação "salami", conflitos de interesse, autocitação, submissão e publicação duplicadas, e plágio são problemas comuns. A conduta editorial inadequada inclui: falha em seguir o processo devido, atraso nas decisões e comunicação com os autores, falhas na revisão, e confundir o conteúdo de um periódico com seu potencial promocional e de propaganda. Os editores podem ser advertidos por seus pares por não investigar comportamento científico suspeito, por não se retratar quando indicado ou não obedecer as seis principais fontes internacionais de orientação em pesquisa, publicação e política editorial. Os editores estão em posição privilegiada para promover práticas adequadas, adotando orientações éticas e claras sobre os procedimentos

show abstract

Section: Overlapping Publicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethical dilemmas in scientific publication: pitfalls and solutions for editors

Gollogly

Momen

2006

Rev. Saúde Pública

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The latest or the largest RCT of each centre/ population is used for evidence levels, as others are repetitive and do not contribute to the evidence levels [15]. In addition to RCTs, large cohorts of each laser system, if available, were used for acquiring additional evidence.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laser prostatectomy of lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostate enlargement

Bachmann

Woo²,

Wyler³

2012

Current Opinion in Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…SSH scholars anticipate many dysfunctional effects such as mainstreaming or conservative effects of indicators, a loss of diversity of research topics or disciplines due to selection effects introduced by the use of indicators, or importance of spectacular research findings leading to unethical reporting of findings (Fisher et al, 2000;Andersen et al, 2009;Hose, 2009;Burrows, 2012). More and more such negative steering effects of indicators are observed also in the natural sciences (Butler, 2003(Butler, , 2007Mojon-Azzi et al, 2003;Moonesinghe et al, 2007; Unreliable research. Trouble at the lab, 2013).…”

Section: Bibliometrics and Scientometrics In Ssh Research Assessmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The future of research assessment in the humanities: bottom-up assessment procedures

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research assessment in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) is delicate. Assessment procedures meet strong criticisms from SSH scholars and bibliometric research shows that the methods that are usually applied are ill-adapted to SSH research. While until recently research on assessment in the SSH disciplines focused on the deficiencies of the current assessment methods, we present some European initiatives that take a bottom-up approach. They focus on research practices in SSH and reflect on how to assess SSH research with its own approaches instead of applying and adjusting the methods developed for and in the natural and life sciences. This is an important development because we can learn from previous evaluation exercises that whenever scholars felt that assessment procedures were imposed in a top-down manner without proper adjustments to SSH research, it resulted in boycotts or resistance. Applying adequate evaluation methods not only helps foster a better valorization of SSH research within the research community, among policymakers and colleagues from the natural sciences, but it will also help society to better understand SSH's contributions to solving major societal challenges. Therefore, taking the time to encourage bottom-up evaluation initiatives should result in being able to better confront the main challenges facing modern society. This article is published as part of a collection on the future of research assessment.

show abstract

Journals: redundant publications are bad news

Cited by 22 publications

References 2 publications

Ethical dilemmas in scientific publication: pitfalls and solutions for editors

Ethical dilemmas in scientific publication: pitfalls and solutions for editors

Laser prostatectomy of lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostate enlargement

The future of research assessment in the humanities: bottom-up assessment procedures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About