The impact of misconduct on the published medical and non-medical literature, and the news media

Zhang, Minghua; Grieneisen, Michael L.

doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0920-5

Cited by 31 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are literature reviews associated with the reasons of retraction [19]- [21]. Over and above, the causes of retraction have been extensively investigated in details by R. G. Steen [1]; M. Zhang and M. L. Grieneisen [5]; Susan Feng Lu , Ginger Zhe Jin , Brian Uzzi and Benjamin Jones [10]; R. Nambiar, P. Tilak, and C. Cerejo [12]; and Tianwei He [15] in the publications indexed in WoS. Presently, two science journalists that had spent seven years in writing on retraction have launched a beta version of retraction database.…”

Section: Reasons On Retractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Non-random reasons refer to the presence of deliberate fraudulent data onto different nature and high levels [13]. M. Zhang and M. L. Grieneisen [5] classifies the misconduct and frauds into two categories; publishing misconduct and research misconduct [5]. plagiarism and duplicate publications considered to be publishing misconduct [4], [5].…”

Section: B Non-random Reasonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…M. Zhang and M. L. Grieneisen [5] classifies the misconduct and frauds into two categories; publishing misconduct and research misconduct [5]. plagiarism and duplicate publications considered to be publishing misconduct [4], [5]. Henning Schulzrinne [31] asserts that publishing misconduct refers to double submission of plagiarism, and falsification [31].…”

Section: B Non-random Reasonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another term related to duplication is Self-plagiarism that further refers to submitting multiple papers in different journals with the same results but with some changes on the papers' titles [7]. In the studies of Zhang and Grieneisen [5], it is indicated that self-plagiarism is when authors re-publish previous works without any extent permission from other authors [4], [5]. S. Stretton et al [21] calls self-plagiarism as a duplication of re-using a previous work from the same author [21].…”

Section: Self-plagiarismmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The intention here is to reflect on the reason for the importance of understanding retraction. It is for preparing junior researchers better for conducting their research and improving their writing processes along with assisting them from being retracted through having a better understanding of the retraction reasons, from other disciplines not only biomedical studies [5]. Ravi Murugesan [16] indicates that any extent retraction does not impair or diminish the journal; it is conserved in the journal contained by retraction [16].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

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

Section: Reasons On Retractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: B Non-random Reasonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: B Non-random Reasonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Self-plagiarismmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

show abstract

Costly collaborations: The impact of scientific fraud on co‐authors' careers

Mongeon

Larivière

2015

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last few years, several major scientific fraud cases have shocked the scientific community. The number of retractions each year has also increased tremendously, especially in the biomedical field, and scientific misconduct accounts for approximately more than half of those retractions. It is assumed that co-authors of retracted papers are affected by their colleagues' misconduct, and the aim of this study is to provide empirical evidence of the effect of retractions in biomedical research on co-authors' research careers. Using data from the Web of Science (WOS), we measured the productivity, impact and collaboration of 1,123 co-authors of 293 retracted articles for a period of five years before and after the retraction. We found clear evidence that collaborators do suffer consequences of their colleagues' misconduct, and that a retraction for fraud has higher consequences than a retraction for error. Our results also suggest that the extent of these consequences is closely linked with the ranking of co-authors on the retracted paper, being felt most strongly by first authors, followed by the last authors, while the impact is less important for middle authors.

show abstract

Non‐author entities accountable for retractions: A diachronic and cross‐disciplinary exploration of reasons for retraction

2022

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Retraction notices are expected to be transparent about entities accountable for retractions and their reasons for retraction. No previous research on retraction notices has investigated accountable entities other than authors of retracted publications and their reasons for retraction from a cross-disciplinary and a diachronic perspective. Drawing on a dataset of 7650 unique retraction notices published before 2020 and indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection, this study identified 457 retraction notices that held four types of non-author entities accountable. Journal authorities (i.e., editors and publishers) were found responsible for retractions in 62.14% of the retraction notices, followed by unidentifiable entities (26.91%), third parties (6.13%), and dual entities (i.e., both authors and journal authorities, 4.81%). The three most frequent reasons for retraction were republication of valid publications (36.76%), unspecified reasons (26.91%), and publication of unpublishable work (17.07%).Accountable non-author entities were more identifiable in the retraction notices published between 2010 and 2019 than in those published before 2010. Retraction notices in soft disciplines were more likely than those in hard disciplines to identify journal authorities as accountable entities.These findings offer implications for handling retractions more effectively and efficiently.

show abstract

The impact of misconduct on the published medical and non-medical literature, and the news media

Cited by 31 publications

References 27 publications

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

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

Costly collaborations: The impact of scientific fraud on co‐authors' careers

Non‐author entities accountable for retractions: A diachronic and cross‐disciplinary exploration of reasons for retraction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About