The visibility of scientific misconduct: A review of the literature on retracted journal articles

Hesselmann, Felicitas; Graf, Verena; Schmidt, Marion; Reinhart, Martin

doi:10.1177/0011392116663807

Cited by 111 publications

(89 citation statements)

References 134 publications

(253 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the last two decades, the number of retractions has risen at a rate far exceeding the growth in the total number of published articles (see review in Hesselmann et al, 2017). Grieneisen and Zhang (2012) showed that "The number of articles retracted per year increased by a factor of 19.06 from 2001 to 2010," (Grieneisen & Zhang, 2012, p. 1).…”

Section: Retractionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retractions from altmetric and bibliometric perspectives

Shema

Hahn

Mazarakis

et al. 2019

Information - Wissenschaft &Amp; Praxis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Information. Wissenschaft & Praxis 2019; 70(2-3): 98-110 aléatoire. Un modèle de régression binomial permet d'estimer la probabilité qu'une publication soit retirée pour cause d'inconduite ou d'erreurs. Dans l'échantillon de scores altmétriques élevés, nous avons trouvé une corrélation positive entre les « Altmetric attention Scores » et la probabilité de retrait pour cause d'inconduite ou d'erreurs.

show abstract

Section: Retractionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retractions from altmetric and bibliometric perspectives

Shema

Hahn

Mazarakis

et al. 2019

Information - Wissenschaft &Amp; Praxis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Evidence provided by recent studies indicates that retraction notices engage multiple parties [20]. In their lengthy discussion, M. L. Grieneisen and M. Zhang [4]; and B. K. Redman, H. N. Yarandi, and Jon F. Merz [26] underline that a good number of authorities usually constituted the source of retractions (i.e., authors, editors, peer-reviewers, and publishers) [4] [26].…”

Section: A Random Reasonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…John Bohannon's case indicates that reviewing any paper or the acceptance of a number of papers can happen mistakenly due to negative decisions made by reviewers or open access journals/publishers [30]. Andrew B. Rosenkrantz [8] and Felicitas Hesselmann [20] contend that retraction may be found in ambiguous words categorized in inadvertent or deliberate acts [8], [20]. In a study conducted by M. L. Grieneisen and M. Zhang [4], errors on retraction have been classified as random reasons appertaining to a number of factors such as authors and publishers along with unspecified ones, including honest errors, misconduct, and all sorts of fraud practices [4].…”

Section: A Random Reasonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Debra Parrish, and Bridget Noonan notify that data manipulation increased sharply [23]. This form of frauds seems to be difficult to explore compared to FFP [20].…”

Section: B Non-random Reasonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Also, that paper will not be retracted unless the journal have checked the findings [18]. And in this regard, Felicitas Hesselmann [20] claims that redundancy and salami slicing are one of the extremely significant reasons followed by conflict of interest and plagiarism [20]. Redundancy and actual duplication are further described as a salami-slicing which leads to deform the work [25].…”

Section: Self-plagiarismmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 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

A contextualization of editorial misconduct in the library and information science academic information ecosystem

Green

Johnston

2021

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the last decade, one of the most effective tools applied in combating the erosion of public trust in academic research has been an increased level of transparency in the peer review and editorial process. Publicly available publication ethics guidelines and policies are vital in creating a transparent process that prevents unethical research, publication misconduct, manipulation of the communication of research to practitioners, and the erosion of public trust. This study investigated how these unethical practices, specifically those coded as editorial misconduct, bring the authenticity and integrity of the library and information science academic research digital record into question. Employing a multi‐layered approach, including key informant interviews, researchers determined the frequency and the content of ethical publishing policies and procedures in library and information science journals; exploring the ways the lack of, or nonadherence to these policies and procedures impacted library and information science researchers in instances of editorial misconduct.

show abstract

The visibility of scientific misconduct: A review of the literature on retracted journal articles

Cited by 111 publications

References 134 publications

Retractions from altmetric and bibliometric perspectives

Retractions from altmetric and bibliometric perspectives

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

A contextualization of editorial misconduct in the library and information science academic information ecosystem

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About