Self-correction in biomedical publications and the scientific impact

Gasparyan, Armen Yuri; Ayvazyan, Lilit; Akazhanov, Nurbek A.; Kitas, George D.

doi:10.3325/cmj.2014.55.61

Cited by 55 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 19 publications

(20 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Organizations target top researchers with very high h -indices, and challenge them to publish in reputed journals to boost the institution’s scientific rankings. Ultimately, high rank journals can fall prey to unethical publication and plagiarized work, which consequently end up with retractions 25. Retraction is a mechanism of correcting the literature and informing readers about publications with seriously flawed or unreliable and erroneous data 26.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Publish or Perish mantra in the medical field: A systematic review of the reasons, consequences and remedies

Guraya¹,

Norman²,

Khoshhal³

et al. 2016

Pak J Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives:Generally, academic promotions, job retention, job mobility, and professional development of a medical faculty members are judged primarily by the growth in publication outputs. Universities and research institutions are more likely to recruit and promote those academics carrying voluminous résumés with larger number of published articles. This review elaborates the causes and consequences of the pressure to publish and the ways and means to cope with this paradigm.Methods:In 2015, database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, LISTA (EBSCO), Medline and Oxford University Library were searched for the English language full-text articles published during 2000-2015, by using MeSH terms “pressure to publish”, “urge to publish”, “research ethics”, “plagiarism”, “article retraction”, “medical field”. This search was further refined by selecting the articles in terms of relevancy and contents.Results:This research showed that some universities offer generous grants to researchers with a high h-index and with more publications in elite journals, which promise an enhanced prospect of citations and elevation in the scientific rankings of the funding institutions. This generates an involuntary obsession to publish with the primary intention to obtain promotions, high scientific rankings, and improved job security. This compelling pressure to publish results in widespread publication of non-significant research with a high index of plagiarism that eventually leads to an increased frequency of retractions.Conclusion:Research centers and academic institutions have an obligation to train their academics in sound scientific writing and to apprise them of the publication ethics and the grave consequences of plagiarism and research misconduct.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Publish or Perish mantra in the medical field: A systematic review of the reasons, consequences and remedies

Guraya¹,

Norman²,

Khoshhal³

et al. 2016

Pak J Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A similar trend was found between country-based h-index values and duplicate and retracted publications. The study suggests that the intensified self-correction in biomedicine is due to the attention of readers and authors, who spot errors in their hub of evidence-based information [18]. What we need to understand is that it is only because of digitization and open access that there is the staggering increase in correction notices and retractions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Gasparyan et al [18] conducted searches through PubMed to retrieve errata, duplicate, and retracted publications (as of January 30, 2014). Their analysis found 2,597 correction items.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Should We be More “Open” About Publishing Research?

Allahbadia

2014

J Obstet Gynecol India

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Corrective measures include either an outright retraction from the published literature of the article, an expression of concern by the journal, or a correction of the published paper issued by the journal. 23 In the opinion of 75% of the responders all the co-authors should be penalized in case of fraudulent publication. To check on these, about 57.1% of responder considered that there be a target set of research publication for academic promotions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge, attitudes and practices of medical researchers toward authorship in scientific journals

Sutar³

2020

Int J Basic Clin Pharmacol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The knowledge, attitudes and practices of scientific authorship vary across different regions. We conducted this study to understand this variation among medical researchers in India.Methods: An anonymous web-based researcher-survey invited all faculty, researchers and PhD students at Pacific institute of Medical sciences, Udaipur, India. The study design and the questionnaire were approved by the institutional ethics committee. Basic information on study was given to obtain consent for participation. The 30 questions on authorship experience and related issues were based on the statements in International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and other national and international recommendations on authorship. Participants reported their authorship experiences and answered multiple choice questionnaires.Results: The response rate was 36.36% among the participants, who were post-graduate with up to 10 years of research experience. About 62.5% had not been appropriately acknowledged as authors at some point during their career. Contributors (authorship) and ethical peer review is perceived as the key principle of research integrity. Though, single authorship was regarded as more significant, interdisciplinary management of diseases increases number of co-authors. A platform to challenge authorship, declaration of contribution in authorship and shared responsibility of co-authors in case of fraudulent publication was majority opinion.Conclusions: Almost 50 of the participant medical researchers had knowledge of formal authorship requirements. Majority agreed with the criteria would help in decreasing the authorship dispute in the medical research. There is need for awareness and continuous education on these criteria.

show abstract

Self-correction in biomedical publications and the scientific impact

Cited by 55 publications

References 19 publications

Publish or Perish mantra in the medical field: A systematic review of the reasons, consequences and remedies

Publish or Perish mantra in the medical field: A systematic review of the reasons, consequences and remedies

Should We be More “Open” About Publishing Research?

Knowledge, attitudes and practices of medical researchers toward authorship in scientific journals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About