Search

Forensic Scientometrics (FoSci) is emerging as a vital discipline at the intersection of scientific integrity and security. Scholarship and scholarly communication are critical for maintaining scientific integrity, influencing public trust in science, health, technology, policy, and law. Yet, these foundations are threatened by the misuse of scientific research for personal, commercial, ideological, and geopolitical gains, including questionable practices and misconduct. The rise of paper mills and predatory publishers, along with ideological and geopolitical motivations, undermines academic integrity. This field pioneers the integration of traditional scientometric methods with ethics to address pressing challenges in research integrity and security, crucial in an era of heightened scrutiny over science's reliability. FoSci's development signifies a collective commitment to maintaining scientific trust, marked by a call for official recognition and support from stakeholders across the scientific ecosystem., Comment: 13 pages, 2 Tables

Disinformation spreads among the public and in scientific discourse through the actions of individuals, organizations, and governments that distort scholarly communications, media narratives, and institutional trust. This taxonomy introduces a structured framework and specialized set of definitions to elucidate the key participants, platforms, and strategies employed in the propagation of disinformation. Enhanced comprehension of the mechanisms and pathways of scientific disinformation equips journalists and policymakers with the tools necessary to more effectively recognize and address these issues. The authors developed this taxonomy of disinformation through a multi-faceted approach, encompassing a literature review, expert review, and case study analysis. The literature review revealed a scarcity of taxonomical models amidst prevalent algorithmic detection studies. Subsequently, an expert review process refined our taxonomy through collaborative analysis of twenty-two cases of identified disinformation, categorized by their methods, motives, and impacts. Finally, we validated and fine-tuned our taxonomy through detailed case studies of twelve diverse disinformation instances, assessing the taxonomy's effectiveness in capturing the essential characteristics of each case and making necessary adjustments to ensure its relevance and accuracy in real-world applications., Comment: 10 pages, 3 tables

This case study analyzes the expertise, potential conflicts of interest, and objectivity of editors, authors, and peer reviewers involved in a 2022 special journal issue on fertility, pregnancy, and mental health. Data were collected on qualifications, organizational affiliations, and relationships among six papers' authors, three guest editors, and twelve peer reviewers. Two articles were found to have undisclosed conflicts of interest between authors, an editor, and multiple peer reviewers affiliated with anti-abortion advocacy and lobbying groups, indicating compromised objectivity. This lack of transparency undermines the peer review process and enables biased research and disinformation proliferation. To increase integrity, we recommend multiple solutions: open peer review, expanded conflict of interest disclosure, increased stakeholder accountability, and retraction when ethical standards are violated. By illuminating noncompliance with ethical peer review guidelines, this study aims to raise awareness to help prevent the propagation of partisan science through respected scholarly channels., Comment: 15 pages, 3 tables, 2 figures