Retracted Science and the Retraction Index

Fang, Ferric C.; Casadevall, Arturo

doi:10.1128/iai.05661-11

Cited by 303 publications

(229 citation statements)

References 90 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

195

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…3D). An association between impact factor and retraction for fraud or error has been noted previously (4,6,29,30). This finding may reflect the greater scrutiny accorded to articles in high-impact journals and the greater uncertainty associated with cutting-edge research.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 62%

Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications

Fang

Steen²,

Casadevall

2012

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

Self Cite

934

761

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

15 ps −1 and a bath temperature of 298 K were used to propagate the equations of motion within the Langevin approach. Periodic boundary conditions were applied to simulate a continuous medium." should instead appear as "A friction coefficient of 10 ps −1 and a bath temperature of 298 K were used to propagate the equations of motion within the Langevin approach. No boundary conditions were imposed; the system freely evolved in vacuum."These errors do not affect the conclusions of the article.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 62%

Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications

Fang

Steen²,

Casadevall

2012

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

Self Cite

934

761

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Alternatively, the variable prevalence of duplication could be partly accounted for by variations in the average number of figures and the number of panels per figure, which is likely to differ per journal but was not determined in our study. The inverse correlation between the prevalence of problematic papers and journal impact factor contrasts with the positive correlation observed for research misconduct resulting in retraction (8,(21)(22)(23). Although the association was weak, it may suggest that higher impact journals are better able to detect anomalous images prior to publication.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 61%

The Prevalence of Inappropriate Image Duplication in Biomedical Research Publications

Bik

Casadevall²,

Fang

2016

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inaccurate data in scientific papers can result from honest error or intentional falsification. This study attempted to determine the percentage of published papers that contain inappropriate image duplication, a specific type of inaccurate data. The images from a total of 20,621 papers published in 40 scientific journals from 1995 to 2014 were visually screened. Overall, 3.8% of published papers contained problematic figures, with at least half exhibiting features suggestive of deliberate manipulation. The prevalence of papers with problematic images has risen markedly during the past decade. Additional papers written by authors of papers with problematic images had an increased likelihood of containing problematic images as well. As this analysis focused only on one type of data, it is likely that the actual prevalence of inaccurate data in the published literature is higher. The marked variation in the frequency of problematic images among journals suggests that journal practices, such as prepublication image screening, influence the quality of the scientific literature.

show abstract

“…Reviewers often fail to detect major methodological failings ( Schroter et al , 2004), with eminent journals (whose higher rejection rates might suggest more stringent peer review processes) seeming to perform no better than others ( Fang et al , 2012). Indeed, Fang and Casadevall found that the frequency of retraction is strongly correlated with the journal impact factor ( Fang & Casadevall, 2011). Whatever the cause, recent sharp rises in the number of retracted scientific publications ( Steen et al , 2013) testify that peer review sometimes fails in its role as the gatekeeper of science, allowing errors to enter the literature.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is open peer review? A systematic review

Ross-Hellauer

2017

F1000Res

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: “Open peer review” (OPR), despite being a major pillar of Open Science, has neither a standardized definition nor an agreed schema of its features and implementations. The literature reflects this, with a myriad of overlapping and often contradictory definitions. While the term is used by some to refer to peer review where the identities of both author and reviewer are disclosed to each other, for others it signifies systems where reviewer reports are published alongside articles. For others it signifies both of these conditions, and for yet others it describes systems where not only “invited experts” are able to comment. For still others, it includes a variety of combinations of these and other novel methods. Methods: Recognising the absence of a consensus view on what open peer review is, this article undertakes a systematic review of definitions of “open peer review” or “open review”, to create a corpus of 122 definitions. These definitions are then systematically analysed to build a coherent typology of the many different innovations in peer review signified by the term, and hence provide the precise technical definition currently lacking. Results: This quantifiable data yields rich information on the range and extent of differing definitions over time and by broad subject area. Quantifying definitions in this way allows us to accurately portray exactly how ambiguously the phrase “open peer review” has been used thus far, for the literature offers a total of 22 distinct configurations of seven traits, effectively meaning that there are 22 different definitions of OPR in the literature. Conclusions: Based on this work, I propose a pragmatic definition of open peer review as an umbrella term for a number of overlapping ways that peer review models can be adapted in line with the ethos of Open Science, including making reviewer and author identities open, publishing review reports and enabling greater participation in the peer review process.

show abstract

Retracted Science and the Retraction Index

Cited by 303 publications

References 90 publications

Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications

Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications

The Prevalence of Inappropriate Image Duplication in Biomedical Research Publications

What is open peer review? A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About