Misconduct, Marginality and Editorial Practices in Management, Business and Economics Journals

Abstract

ObjectivesThe paper presents data on the two problems of misconduct and marginality in management, business and economics (MBE) journals and their practices to combat these problems.DesignData was collected in three phases. First, all publicly retracted papers in MBE journals were identified through keywords searches in 7 major databases (n = 1329 journals). Second, a focused survey was distributed to editors involved in such retractions (n = 64; response rate = 28%). Finally, a survey was administered to all active journals in the seven databases to collect data on editors’ perceptions and practices related to the two problems (n = 937, response rate = 31.8%). Frequency analyses, cross tabulations, and qualitative analyses of open answers were used to examine the data.Results184 retracted papers in MBE journals were identified in 2005–2015 (no retraction was found before 2005). From 2005–2007 to 2012–2015, the number of retractions increased by a factor ten with an all-time high in 2015. The survey to journals with reported retractions illustrates how already a few cases of suspected misconduct put a strain on the editorial workload. The survey to all active journals revealed that 42% of the respondents had started to use software to screen all submitted papers, and that a majority recognized the problem of marginality, as indicated by salami-style submissions. According to some editors, reviewers easily spot such submissions whereas others argued that authors may submit thinly sliced papers in parallel to several journals, which means that this practice is only discovered post-publication. The survey question on ways to support creative contributions stimulated a rich response of ideas regarding editorial vision, engaged boards and developmental approaches. The study uses data from three specialized fields, but its findings may be highly relevant to many journals in the social sciences.

Plagiarism, Replication of Published Material without Citation and the Policy of the European Management Review

“…Of the reasons identified, a total of 68 or 38% were retracted because of plagiarism or self‐plagiarism. Karabag and Berggren () present the phenomenon as non‐existent in 2005, rising to around 30 cases per year in 2012–2014, peaking at 63 retractions in the last year of their study (2015). This peak was attributable to two serial violators in economics and accounting.…”

“…In focusing our discussion on inappropriate reproduction of text, we are not condoning other questionable academic practices such as submission of articles that make only a marginal additional contribution because of the way in which authors use a limited amount of additional data from the same database in a new paper (Albers, ; Karabag and Berggren, ). The purpose of this paper is to develop and explicate a policy for unacceptable text replication, but other inappropriate practices will also be responded to.…”

“…An alternative approach to the study of plagiarism in the management disciplines has been retraction studies. Karabag and Berggren () identified 184 papers that had been retracted from management or business, economics and interdisciplinary journals between 2005 and 2015. Of the reasons identified, a total of 68 or 38% were retracted because of plagiarism or self‐plagiarism.…”

“…Plagiarism, although of only recent interest in academic publishing (Smart and Gaston, ), has been gathering reported momentum in management and cognate disciplines (Bedeian et al ., ; Poon and Ainuddin, ; Honig and Bedi, ; Sonfield, ; Thomas and de Bruin, , p. 78; Karabag and Berggren, ; Ayondele et al ., ; Horbach and Halffman, ). Hitherto, the evidence is inconsistent, possibly because of variations in definitions and the use of different methods of evidence collection.…”

Presentación. La afinidad entre lógica y ética

“…Sin desconocer que gran parte de los investigadores trabajan en pos de un proceso confiable y vá-lido, otra parte se ha dejado tentar por el predominio de sus intereses personales y de promoción científica, que han puesto en riesgo la credibilidad de la ciencia al publicar artículos con sesgos o incluso alteraciones en los resultados, datos falsos y fraudulentos (Trikalinos, Evangelou, & Ioannidis, 2008), plagio, autoplagio, publicaciones redundantes, artículos duplicados y problemas relacionados con la ética en la investigación (Tabla 1). 12% errores inintencionados (4% errores estadísticos, 5% datos problemáticos, 1% error administrativo del autor, 2% otros editoriales) 80% faltas de ética (26% fabricación de datos, 23% plagio, 15% autoplagio, 7% falso revisor, 7% duplicación, 1% problemas éticos, 1% falsificación de datos) 8% razones indeterminadas Karabag, & Berggren, 2016 Fuente: elaboración propia a partir de los resultados de los artículos que aquí se relacionan. Notas: Se hace una reagrupación de los datos aportados por los autores de los artículos en tres grandes categorías: errores inintencionados, aquellos que pueden suceder en cualquier proceso, sin intención de engaño, faltas de ética y razones indeterminadas, para poder hacer una lectura más homogénea y no sesgada de ellos.…”