Search

A variety of ways to detect questionable research practices in small sample social science surveys have been discussed by a variety of authors. However, some of those approaches (e.g., GRIM test, SPRITE test) do not work well for results obtained from larger samples. Here several approaches for detecting anomalies in larger samples are presented and illustrated by an analysis of 78 journal articles in the area of criminology, 59 by Dr. Eric Stewart, published since 1998 with similar methods and/or authors. Of all 59 articles, 28 (47.5%, p <.001, d = 0.94) had two or more major anomalies compared to none of the 19 control group articles. It was also found that the larger the role of Dr. Stewart in article authorship, the greater the number of anomalies detected (p <.001, d = 1.01) while for his coauthors, there were few significant relationships between their roles and total anomalies. Our results demonstrate that extensive problematic results can remain undetected for decades despite several levels of peer review and other scientific controls; however, use of two types of control groups and the use of statistical methods for measuring and evaluating anomalies can improve detection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We construct a Banach space satisfying that the nearest point map (also called proximity mapping or metric projection) onto any non-singleton compact and convex subset is continuous but not uniformly continuous. The space we construct is locally uniformly convex, which ensures the continuity of all these nearest point maps. Moreover, we prove that every infinite-dimensional separable Banach space is arbitrarily close (in the Banach-Mazur distance) to one satisfying the above conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Retracted publications can still receive a substantial number of citations after the retraction. Little is known about the causes for this phenomenon and the nature of epistemic risk or harm in these retraction cases. Using this phenomenon also as an example for the broader question of how scholarly communities deal with uncertainty in the reception of publications, this case study aims to assess the epistemic contributions of retracted publications with continuous and decreasing citation impact and to relate these to the epistemic environments of the retracted papers and to reception patterns. Several parsing and natural language processing approaches are used, complemented, and validated by qualitative close reading. Specifically, (i) dissent and support are identified in citing and in co-cited publications; (ii) the concept terms of retracted publications are expanded by word embeddings and MeSH terms and traced in citation contexts; and finally (iii) rhetorical functions in citation contexts are identified based on keyword extraction. Empirical support and unresolved disputes are found almost exclusively in cases with continuous citations. Authors emphasize specific informational values in some cases with citations continuing after the retraction, while methodological and more general levels of claims prevail in others. Citations can be meaningfully examined by considering the weighing process between epistemic risks and informational value; persistent citation impact thus doesn't necessarily indicate the perpetuation of epistemic harm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Understanding and incorporating evidence‐based veterinary medicine (EBVM) into clinical practice and research continues to pose a challenge for our profession despite over 2 decades of increasing awareness of this concept. Reasons for this include a lack of understanding of its importance to the practice of medicine, veterinary literature that often fails to adhere to evidence‐based standards, inadequate attention to teaching EBVM at the university level, and the inherent reluctance of clinicians to alter historical practice styles. For many practitioners, EBVM continues to be an abstract concept they believe requires advanced training in statistics and epidemiology resulting in them relying on less robust sources for clinical guidance. This unfortunately results in suboptimal care for our patients and delayed medical advancements for our profession. As part of the 20th anniversary of the founding of the Evidence‐Based Veterinary Medicine Association (EBVMA), we are refocusing our efforts to highlight the need for dedicated teaching of EBVM at the university level, for rigorous adherence to established research reporting guidelines, for expansion of EBVM infrastructure, and for the provision of easily accessible tools that permit clinicians to incorporate EBVM into their daily practice. As the quality of veterinary literature improves, so too will development of more effective clinical practice guidelines that ultimately can be widely adopted if they are flexible enough to support the triadic relationship between veterinarians, our clients and our patients. Ultimately, EBVM is not an end unto itself, but rather a means to improve the quality of care we provide our patients.

We investigated reasons for retraction, pre-and post-retraction citations and Altmetrics indicators of retracted publications in the medical sciences from 2016 to 2020. Data were retrieved from Scopus (n = 840). The Retraction Watch database was used to identify the reasons for retraction and the time that elapsed from publication to retraction. The findings showed that intentional errors were the most prevalent reasons for retraction. China (438), the United States (130), and India (51) have the largest share of retractions. These retracted publications were cited 5,659 times in other research publications, of which 1,559 citations occurred after the retraction, which should raise concern. These retracted papers were also shared in online platforms, mainly on Twitter and by members of the general public. We recommend that the early detection of retracted papers may help to reduce the rate of citation and sharing of these publications, and minimize their negative impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On occasion, following the publication of a paper, serious concerns might be raised, either about the study, the author(s), or background processes. When editors-in-chief (EiCs) have sufficient evidence in the case of a serious ethical offense or methodological errors that may invalidate the paper's findings or ethical standing, they can retract the paper rapidly. However, in the interim period between receiving a report and seeking a solution, several weeks, months or even years might pass, and readers need to be alerted to its potential unreliability. In such an instance, the current alternative (but not corrective) document takes the form of an editorial expression of concern (EoC). However, a case might be unresolved for a long time, with an EoC attached to it, so EiCs are encouraged to seek a resolution as promptly as possible because there are academics who might need to cite and/or rely on that paper. Curiously, even though a comprehensive debate is provided by COPE ethics guidelines and ICMJE recommendations, which refer to EoCs, guidance is not entirely clear. This paper makes an attempt to improve guidelines that editors could consider when faced with the dilemma of whether to issue an EoC, or not. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding and incorporating evidence‐based veterinary medicine (EBVM) into clinical practice and research continues to pose a challenge for our profession despite over 2 decades of increasing awareness of this concept. Reasons for this include a lack of understanding of its importance to the practice of medicine, veterinary literature that often fails to adhere to evidence‐based standards, inadequate attention to teaching EBVM at the university level, and the inherent reluctance of clinicians to alter historical practice styles. For many practitioners, EBVM continues to be an abstract concept they believe requires advanced training in statistics and epidemiology resulting in them relying on less robust sources for clinical guidance. This unfortunately results in suboptimal care for our patients and delayed medical advancements for our profession. As part of the 20th anniversary of the founding of the Evidence‐Based Veterinary Medicine Association (EBVMA), we are refocusing our efforts to highlight the need for dedicated teaching of EBVM at the university level, for rigorous adherence to established research reporting guidelines, for expansion of EBVM infrastructure, and for the provision of easily accessible tools that permit clinicians to incorporate EBVM into their daily practice. As the quality of veterinary literature improves, so too will development of more effective clinical practice guidelines that ultimately can be widely adopted if they are flexible enough to support the triadic relationship between veterinarians, our clients and our patients. Ultimately, EBVM is not an end unto itself, but rather a means to improve the quality of care we provide our patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Commentary critically evaluates scientific journals' responsibility in addressing safety concerns within chemical research publications. We highlight the risks associated with uncritically accepting initial safety claims in the chemical literature, especially when such claims are later retracted or corrected. Our analysis focuses on three specific cases where procedures initially deemed safe necessitated significant safety corrections, and we emphasize the inadequate response of the publishing community to these updates. It is important to note that safety corrections often remain less visible and less cited than the original flawed publications. We scrutinize the mechanisms publishers employ for marking safety-related corrections and retractions and find them inconsistent and insufficiently visible to alert researchers, particularly trainees and those with less experience. We propose more effective strategies to enhance the clarity and prominence of safety information, including mandatory peer-review by chemical safety specialists and prominent watermarking of papers with safety corrections. We also advocate for authors and reviewers to use a safety checklist that includes detailed hazard identification, clear storage and handling instructions, and justification of hazardous reagents. Our Commentary underscores the shared responsibility across the scientific ecosystem in maintaining safety standards, advocating for a proactive role by journal publishers in protecting researchers from hazardous procedures and compounds, thus prioritizing safety in the publication of chemical research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Based on the extracted information of retracted papers from the Retraction Watch Database and the citation information of these papers from the Web of Science, we uncovered the complex relationships of retracted papers in the molecular biology domain via a citation network. The basic characteristics (i.e., time and spatial patterns, reasons, publishers) of the retracted articles were studied. Citation network analysis, including community detection and text analysis, was carried out. Our main findings are as follows: (1) The overall number of retractions in this field has been increasing over time, and these retractions have been mainly in China and the USA. (2) Most retracted papers were for both "scientific error" and "misconduct" reasons. Among the 13 reasons given, errors in the data and images accounted for the largest proportion. (3) Community structure is obvious in the citation network we constructed. In communities with five or more nodes, the average self-citation rate account for 76%. In the three largest communities 1, 2, and 3, the self-citation rate are respectively 99%, 100% and 77%. In community 6, the self-catition rate is 17%. Other papers from different teams were published in the Journal of Cellular Biochemistry (4 papers). Tumor Biology (3 papers) or Febs Letters (1 paper). The self-citation rate of community 5 is 60.00%. Most papers are from Alfredo Fusco's team, and other ten papers are almost published in PLoS ONE. (4) The coupling relationship between citing-cited retraction reasons was revealed. Retractions and their citations were more likely to be retracted for the same reason. Most of the citing-cited papers from paper mills were published by the same publisher and even the same journal. (5) PI3K (an enzyme), WNT (a protein) and lncRNAs have recently been the major topics of retractions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In environmental science, it is necessary to accurately describe processes, methods and phenomena using established technical terms and jargon. Any significant deviation from such terms might leave readers and peers confused, while confusion can lead to misinterpretations, opening up the possibility of errors. During peer review and prior to publication in a peer-reviewed environmental journal, it is thus incumbent upon editors and peer reviewers, and to a lesser extent copy editors, to verify that terminology in a scientific paper is accurate. In this brief communication, 61 papers with cases of ‘tortured phrases’, which are terms that have-for some reason-come to replace established jargon, are described in indexed environmental literature, frequently in indexed journals that are generally associated with reputable publishers. Of the 61 papers, 13 have been retracted, suggesting an erosion of the papers’ integrity. Awareness of this phenomenon and these cases allows editors and peer reviewers of environmental journals to be more careful when screening and vetting submitted papers, but should also serve as a lesson for authors to be more careful when writing their papers, avoiding the temptation to automatically incorporate text that online text thesauruses may provide, or to use non-standard terms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic resulted in a worldwide research effort to understand the epidemiology, pathogenesis, treatment, and outcomes of the infection. Journals were under increased stress to identify valuable information and make it available to clinicians, researchers, and government officials. Some of these publications required retraction, which increased the workload of editors and reviewers, and created distrust in some healthcare workers and in some members of the public. This review demonstrates that these retractions occurred in multiple journals for multiple reasons. These situations illustrate the potential difficulties in studying medical disorders and should remind all members of the academic community that high-quality, valid medical studies are essential to advance medical knowledge and clinical care. Objectives: Periodically, medical publications are retracted. The reasons vary from minor situations, such as author attributions, which do not undermine the validity of the data or the analysis in the article, to serious reasons, such as fraud. Understanding the reasons for retraction can provide important information for clinicians, educators, researchers, journals, and editorial boards. Methods: The PubMed database was searched using the term "COVID-19" (coronavirus disease 2019) and the term limitation "retracted publication." The characteristics of the journals with retracted articles, the types of article, and the reasons for retraction were analyzed. Results: This search recovered 196 articles that had been retracted. These retractions were published in 179 different journals; 14 journals had >1 retracted article. The mean impact factor of these journals was 8.4, with a range of 0.32–168.9. The most frequent reasons for retractions were duplicate publication, concerns about data validity and analysis, concerns about peer review, author request, and the lack of permission or ethical violation. There were significant differences between the types of article and the reasons for retraction but no consistent pattern. A more detailed analysis of two particular retractions demonstrates the complexity and the effort required to make decisions about article retractions. Conclusions: The retraction of published articles presents a significant challenge to journals, editorial boards, peer reviewers, and authors. This process has the potential to provide important benefits; it also has the potential to undermine confidence in both research and the editorial process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this work is to understand the retraction phenomenon in the arts and humanities domain through an analysis of the retraction notices—formal documents stating and describing the retraction of a particular publication. The retractions and the corresponding notices are identified using the data provided by Retraction Watch. Our methodology for the analysis combines a metadata analysis and a content analysis (mainly performed using a topic modelling process) of the retraction notices. Considering 343 cases of retraction, we found that many retraction notices are neither identifiable nor findable. In addition, these were not always separated from the original papers, introducing ambiguity in understanding how these notices were perceived by the community (i.e. cited). Also, we noticed that there is no systematic way to write a retraction notice. Indeed, some retraction notices presented a complete discussion of the reasons for retraction, while others tended to be more direct and succinct. We have also reported many notices having similar text while addressing different retractions. We think a further study with a larger collection should be done using the same methodology to confirm and investigate our findings further. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Echoing Arturo Casadevall and Ferric Fang in their Reforming Science: Methodological and Cultural Reforms, “great human enterprises must undergo periodic cycles of self-examination and renewal to maintain their vigor”. Especially in the last decade, the research culture has undergone such cycles, partially driven by countercultural transformations that have been reshaping assumptions towards reward-deserving achievements. Addressing retractions is among the challenges in this culture. This work builds upon research carried out at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), which explored the views of 224 reviewers serving on panels for the US National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, among others. We show results of a survey that add to our previous data. It was sent to a population of 1,089 corresponding authors affiliated with institutions from the 20 most productive countries in biomedical fields. We explored how corresponding authors of at least one retracted publication issued between 2013 and 2015 in biomedical journals envisioned the impact of different types of retractions on the careers of the first and corresponding authors. As such impact (if any) is not always immediate, we selected this time frame to ensure that potential respondents would have tangible post-retraction experience.

In this note we find \lambda >1 and give an explicit construction of a separable Banach space X such that there is no \lambda-Lipschitz retraction from X onto any compact convex subset of X whose closed linear span is X. This is closely related to a well-known open problem raised by Godefroy and Ozawa in 2014 and represents the first known example of a Banach space with such a property. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scientific retraction practices are intended to help purge the continued use of flawed research and assist in maintaining the integrity, credibility and quality of scientific literature. However, the practical effect of retraction is still vague and needs to be further explored. In this study, we analysed the citation counts and sentiments (positive/negative) of retracted articles in psychology journals from Web of Science to explore the effect of retraction. Causal inference strategies were used to measure the net effect of retractions on citation. Results show that the retraction practices induced the citation counts to reduce as expected. However, the proportion of negative citations also decreased because of retraction, indicating an unsatisfied effect. The retraction practice of high-impact factors and open access journals was more effective than other journals. The study integrated an understanding of the dissemination of erroneous publications and provided implications for liabilities involved in the whole retraction process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Key points: Efforts to assess research integrity in scholarly publications tend to focus on the front matter (e.g., fake authors) and the article body (e.g., data falsification, image manipulation, plagiarism).Automated analysis of the bibliography may surface fingerprints pointing to research integrity issues.Tools exist that can be used at all workflow stages, from manuscript submission through production, to detect citations of retracted articles and articles published by predatory publishers.Validation of bibliographic references against trusted databases can be used to help detect fake or chimeric references generated by artificial intelligence applications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The claimed crisis in science has many origins that, when observed uniquely, might got give the impression of a widespread problem. However, when their integrated networks are appreciated, the crisis then begins to take on a form and life of its own. This letter looks at the basis for a potential crisis in any field of research through the prism of citations, specifically the citation of articles that may become invalidated through retraction, or whose integrity may be weakened through an associated expression of concern (EoC). Fields of research, or bodies of literature of individual researchers, that are weakened by an excessive volume of retractions or EoCs face intellectual and scientific implosion.

The expression of concern (EoC) evolved in the neoliberal corrective culture of science to represent an “alert system” for potential problems with papers that might arise at the post-publication stage. One of the problems with EoCs is that they may take months or even years to resolve, while some EoCs remain as such forever. Fairly recently, Elsevier, a publishing giant, introduced a new form of EoCs, or rather, the plain EoC morphed into two types, the temporary EoC, and the permanent EoC. The permanent EoC leaves that paper in a permanent state of unknown use and unclear reliability.

Abstract Objectives Retraction of publications is critical to maintaining scientific integrity, yet there is a lack of research on its occurrence in Otolaryngology. This study investigates characteristics, trends, and reasons for retraction of publications in otolaryngology journals. Study Design Bibliometric analysis. Setting PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science. Methods A PubMed search for publications retracted during 1990 to 2022 from the top 60 journals with the subject “Otorhinolaryngology” using Scopus' CiteScore was performed. Publications were excluded if they were not in English, had missing information or did not have available abstracts or full‐text. Publication and retraction dates, journal, country of origin, citation counts, journal impact factor (JIF), topic, and reason for retraction were recorded. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to identify potential associations in the data. Results Fifty‐three publications were included. The 2020s had the highest number of retractions per year (4.33), with publications being retracted on average, 35 months after initial publication. The most common retracted topic and country of origin were head and neck (26.4%) and China (17.0%), respectively. Most publications were retracted because of plagiarism or duplicate publication (52.8%). Mean citation count was 6.92 ± 8.32 and mean JIF was 2.80 ± 1.35. Citation count was positively associated with months until retraction (r = .432, P = .001). There was no significant correlation between months to retraction and JIF (r = .022, P = .878). Conclusion The most cited reasons for retraction were plagiarism and duplicate publication. An understanding of the reasons for retraction can better position journals to enforce more meticulous review standards and reduce such publications from being published. Level of Evidence Level 4.

Saminger-Platz, Klement, and Mesiar (2008) extended t-norms from a complete sublattice to its respective lattice using the conventional definition of sublattice. In contrast, Palmeira and Bedregal (2012) introduced a more inclusive sublattice definition, via retractions. They expanded various important mathematical operators, including t-norms, t-conorms, fuzzy negations, and automorphisms. They also introduced De Morgan triples (semi-triples) for these operators and provided their extensions in their groundbreaking work. In this paper, we propose a method of extending quasi-overlap functions and quasi-grouping functions defined on bounded sublattices (in a broad sense) to a bounded superlattice. To achieve that, we use the technique proposed by Palmeira and Bedregal. We also define: quasi-overlap (resp. quasi-grouping) functions generated from quasi-grouping (resp. quasi-overlap) functions and frontier fuzzy negations, De Morgan (semi)triples for the classes of quasi-overlap functions, quasi-grouping functions and fuzzy negations, as well as its respective extensions. Finally we study properties of all extensions defined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As part of the research project \"Summa cum fraude - Scientific Misconduct and an Attempt at Counteroffensive\" at Saarland University, an interview was conducted with Ivan Oransky. Oransky is a co-founder of the Retraction Watch database and the Retraction Watch blog, which address scientific misconduct and the retraction of published articles. In the interview, he discusses scientific misconduct, such as data manipulation and peer review processes, as well as plagiarism. He emphasizes the importance of clear retraction notices and sanctions for misconduct. Oransky sees a role for libraries and librarians in ensuring the quality of data and research. The number of retracted scientific articles has dramatically increased in the last 25 years. In 2021, over 3800 retractions were recorded, compared to about 40 in 2000. The retraction rate is currently at 0.08%, while it was at 0.04% four or five years ago. There is a clear upward trend, and some publishers even report hundreds of retractions at once. The Retraction Watch database and blog provide information on this issue and are used by many people. There are various reasons for retractions, such as fake reviews, legal issues, or authorship questions. Guidelines like those of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) can help reduce the number of retractions and improve the integrity of scientific publications. It is important to communicate transparently about retractions to bring about long-term changes. There are already approaches such as registered reports and the disclosure of peer reviews that can improve scientific practice. However, the challenge remains of how best to handle allegations against scientific publications and ensure that they are taken seriously and addressed. It requires better infrastructure and collaboration between researchers, publishers, and other service providers to track and systematically document reports of questionable publications. [Extracted from the article]

This paper investigates retracted articles indexed in the Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO) Brazil, using bibliometric techniques to identify the characteristics of these retractions and relevant citation trends. All records of retracted articles from the first record in October 2004 to April 2022 were included. Sixty-seven retractions and 870 citations pre- and post-retraction were analyzed. Results indicate a change of scenario that began in 2015, with recurrences of retracted articles allegedly produced by paper mills. The prevalence of retractions derived from professional misconduct in health research and the frequency of post-retraction citations in health sciences raise concerns in the chain of stakeholders, public health, and scientific development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This column includes reflections on the UKSG 47th Annual Conference held April 8–10, 2024 in Glasgow, UK and reports on five sessions from the 2024 ER&L Annual Conference held March 3–6, 2024 in Austin, TX. The UKSG conference themes reported on include transitional agreements, artificial intelligence, and research integrity. The ER&L session topics cover e-resource staff challenges in the face of increasing & improving services, accessibility issues through the e-resource lifecycle, a multiple-perspective panel discussion on the journal ecosystem, benefits & lessons learned from a SUSHI implementation project, and Power BI as a tool for supporting collection data analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Introduction: To better understand and prevent research errors, we conducted a first-of-its-kind scoping review of clinical and translational research articles that were retracted because of problems in data capture, management, and/or analysis. Methods: The scoping review followed a preregistered protocol and used retraction notices from the Retraction Watch Database in relevant subject areas, excluding gross misconduct. Abstracts of original articles published between January 1, 2011 and January 31, 2020 were reviewed to determine if articles were related to clinical and translational research. We reviewed retraction notices and associated full texts to obtain information on who retracted the article, types of errors, authors, data types, study design, software, and data availability. Results: After reviewing 1,266 abstracts, we reviewed 884 associated retraction notices and 786 full-text articles. Authors initiated the retraction over half the time (58%). Nearly half of retraction notices (42%) described problems generating or acquiring data, and 28% described problems with preparing or analyzing data. Among the full texts that we reviewed: 77% were human research; 29% were animal research; and 6% were systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Most articles collected data de novo (77%), but only 5% described the methods used for data capture and management, and only 11% described data availability. Over one-third of articles (38%) did not specify the statistical software used. Conclusions: Authors may improve scientific research by reporting methods for data capture and statistical software. Journals, editors, and reviewers should advocate for this documentation. Journals may help the scientific record self-correct by requiring detailed, transparent retraction notices.

Objective: Review the effectiveness of surgical and non‐surgical management strategies for isolated pars flaccida and combined pars tensa and flaccida tympanic membrane retractions in preventing progression or recurrence, improving hearing and preventing development of cholesteatoma. Design: Narrative review. Setting: ENT and otology services worldwide. Participants: Patients with non‐cholesteatoma tympanic membrane retractions. Main Ouctome measure: Changes in retraction (progression or resolution, or development of a known sequela such as perforation). Results: Eight full text papers are included: three randomised controlled trials and five case series or cohort studies of more than five patients (a total of 238 ears). Data exists for the use of conservative management, ventilation tubes, laser tympanoplasty, cartilage and fascia tympanoplasty, lateral attic reconstruction as well as mastoid procedures. Conclusion: Few high‐quality studies on the management of isolated and combined pars flaccida retractions exist. For isolated pars flaccida retractions deemed to require surgical intervention, this review suggests that lateral attic reconstruction and cartilage tympanoplasty carries least risk of recurrence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The retraction of health sciences publications is a growing concern. To understand the patterns in a particular country-context and design specific measures to address the problem, it is important to describe and characterize retractions. We aimed to assess the evolution of health science retractions in Brazil and Portugal and to describe their features. We conducted a cross-sectional study including all health sciences retracted articles with at least one author affiliated to a Portuguese or Brazilian institution identified through Retraction Watch database. A total of 182 retracted articles were identified. The number of retractions increased over time, but the proportion related to the whole of publications remained stable. A total of 50.0% and 60.8% of the Portuguese and Brazilian retracted articles, respectively, were published in first and second quartile journals. Scientific misconduct accounted for 60.1% and 55.9% of retractions in Brazil and Portugal. In both countries, the most frequent cause of misconduct was plagiarism. The time from publication to retraction decreases as the journal quartile increases. The retraction of health sciences articles did not decrease over time in Brazil and Portugal. There is a need to develop strategies aimed at preventing, monitoring and managing scientific misconduct according to the country context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Retractions are becoming increasingly common in research; studies have found that retractions can have significant consequences on the scientific community. The primary goal of this paper is to explore and understand retractions in the technology field in developing economies countries. Understanding the reasons for retractions is essential for researchers to improve their research practices and conduct. The findings of this study revealed a significant increase in the retracted scientific articles in technology, with the highest growth during 2009–2011. In addition, we found that China, Iran, India, and South Korea were among the top countries contributing retracted technology papers. In addition, an investigation of research themes demonstrated that most of the retracted technology articles were associated with simulations, genetic algorithms, mechanical properties, optimisation, adsorption, microstructures, components, neural networks, support vector machines, compressive strength, and data mining. It is essential to adopt sophisticated techniques to prevent plagiarism and duplicate publication. In addition, using an open peer review model is expected to reduce the occurrence of misconduct practices. Journals must also follow stricter policies, e.g., clear retraction guidelines, to prevent authors from possible misconduct. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the publishing of a quantity of scientific research. In less than a year, a record of 200,000 scientific articles have been published on COVID-19. Publishing such a massive quantity of scientific research has instigated publishers to accelerate the review process. An upsurge in the publication rate has resulted in an increase in the retraction rate. This paper focuses on the COVID-19 studies originating across the world from 1 January 2020 to 10 October 2021. The data for this study were mined from . A total of 157 withdrawn articles on COVID-19 were retracted, and it was found that the United States of America contributed 31 (19.75%) retracted articles. Also, 16 (51.61%) of the retracted papers from the United States of America emerge in journals having an Impact Factor (IF). The study presents that 31 (19.75%) retracted articles were worked together by two authors, 26 (16.56%) with one author, and 22 (14.01%) by five authors. Furthermore, Elsevier publishers have the highest retraction rate with 80 (50.96%). Half (50%) of the articles were retracted with "no information" as a reason for retraction. Other reasons for retraction include concern/issues about data, duplication, journal error, lack of approval from a third party, plagiarism, etc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this manuscript, we investigate and approximate common fixed points of two nonself asymptotically nonexpansive mappings in the setting of CAT(0) spaces. We provide three examples and conduct numerical experiments to show the implementation of the approximation schemes. Our results extend and improve the related results in the literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, the changing landscape for the conduct and assessment of research and of researchers has increased scrutiny of the reward systems of science. In this context, correcting the research record, including retractions, has gained attention and space in the publication system. One question is the possible influence of retractions on the careers of scientists. It might be assessed, for example, through citation patterns or productivity rates for authors who have had one or more retractions. This is an emerging issue today, with growing discussions in the research community about impact. We have explored the influence of retractions on grant review criteria. Here, we present results of a qualitative study exploring the views of a group of six representatives of funding agencies from different countries and of a follow-up survey of 224 reviewers in the US. These reviewers have served on panels for the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and/or a few other agencies. We collected their perceptions about the influence of self-correction of the literature and of retractions on grant decisions. Our results suggest that correcting the research record, for honest error or misconduct, is perceived as an important mechanism to strengthen the reliability of science, among most respondents. However, retractions and self-correcting the literature at large are not factors influencing grant review, and dealing with retractions in reviewing grants is an open question for funders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authorship policies of scientific journals often assume that in order to be able to properly place credit and responsibility for the content of a collaborative paper we should be able to distinguish the contributions of the various individuals involved. Hence, many journals have introduced a requirement for author contribution statements aimed at making it easier to place credit and responsibility on individual scientists. We argue that from a purely descriptive point of view the practices of collaborating scientists are at odds with the requirement for author contribution statements. We also argue that from a normative point of view the authorship policies may be unnecessary. Our arguments draw on an examination of 35 years of retraction notices in the journal Science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the expansion of research volume, coinciding with the age of the internet, the retraction of published papers from scientific journals has become crucial to preserving scientific integrity. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, both public and professional interest in scientific literature has grown as people attempt to educate themselves on the virus. The Retraction Watch Database COVID-19 blog was accessed in June and November of 2022 and analyzed to ensure articles met inclusion criteria. Articles were then accessed on Google Scholar and the Scopus database to find number of citations and SJR/CiteScore. The average SJR and CiteScore for a journal that published one of the articles was 1.531 and 7.3 respectively. The retracted articles were cited an average of 44.8 times, which was significantly higher than the average CiteScore (p = 0.01). Between June and November, retracted COVID-19 articles gained a total of 728 new citations, presence of "withdrawn" or "retracted" before article title did not affect citation rates. COPE guidelines for retraction statements were not met for 32% of articles. We believe retracted COVID-19 publications may have been more likely to include bold claims that garnered a disproportionately high amount of attention within the scientific community. Additionally, we found many journals were not forthright with explanations for why articles had been retracted. Retractions could be a tool used to add to the scientific discourse, but currently we are only getting half the data, the what and not the why. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article aims to understand the characteristics of the retracted articles during the COVID-19 pandemic. It aims to identify the countries with the highest number of retractions and the correlation of retractions with funding status, impact factor and collaborations. The study utilised the Retraction Watch Database to identify the retracted articles in the area of COVID-19. The requisite details for each retracted article were recorded, such as title, cause of retraction, date of publication and date of retraction. The impact factor of the journals was ascertained from the Journal Citation Reports (JCR-2021) of Clarivate Analytics, and the causes of retraction were categorised under seven major headings according to Charlesworth Author Services. Further, the study used a chi-squared test to determine the association or relationship between the studied variables. As of December 2022, 264 COVID-19 articles were retracted, of which a large proportion (36, 18.27%) were retracted just after 1 month of publication. The retracted articles were published mainly in journals (224, 84.84%), with 40 (15.15%) articles available on the preprint servers. A significant proportion of retractions were initiated by the authors, editors & authors & editors jointly. However, 6.06% of articles did not mention the retraction authority. Most retractions are due to honest error (131, 49.62). The other causes of retractions include ethical misconduct, ethics violation, conflict of interest and peer-review fraud. Among the countries, the highest number of retractions are credited to the United States (59, 22.34%), China (41, 15.53%) and Malta (30, 11.36%). All the retracted articles were available in the open access mode, with 44 (16.66%) articles funded by different funding organisations. The study reveals that non-funded articles have a higher retraction rate than the funded ones. The study also indicates an inverse relationship between the retraction of articles and journal impact factor, indicating that the higher the impact factor of journals, the lower the retraction rate. There is also a direct relationship between authorship and retractions, i.e. the higher the number of authors, the greater the chances of retraction. Also, the articles having a national collaboration are retracted more than the international ones. The study's main limitation is evaluating a limited set of retractions covered by a single database, which is inherited with limitations compared with other databases. The rush to publish during the pandemic poses threats, which would quickly outdate the study's findings with the outgrowth of retractions. Also, retractions can happen even after a long time, confining the generalisation of results. Retraction of published articles has far-reaching consequences, particularly during the pandemic when a huge influx of publications determines the action-treatment plan for a disease. The study helps to understand the characteristics of retracted articles that may help prevent the dissemination of flawed information during health emergencies. The study highlights the corrective mechanism and its characteristics for scientific misconduct prevalent during COVID-19 pandemic. It provides a thorough understanding of article retractions in the field of COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this article is to explore the editorial response of journals to research articles that may contain methodological errors or misconduct. A total of 17,244 articles commented on in PubPeer, a post-publication peer review site, were processed and classified according to several error and fraud categories. Then, the editorial response (i.e., editorial notices) to these papers were retrieved from PubPeer, Retraction Watch, and PubMed to obtain the most comprehensive picture. The results show that only 21.5% of the articles that deserve an editorial notice (i.e., honest errors, methodological flaws, publishing fraud, manipulation) were corrected by the journal. This percentage would climb to 34% for 2019 publications. This response is different between journals, but cross-sectional across all disciplines. Another interesting result is that high-impact journals suffer more from image manipulations, while plagiarism is more frequent in low-impact journals. The study concludes with the observation that the journals have to improve their response to problematic articles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We examined the gender distribution of authors of retracted articles in 134 medical journals across 10 disciplines, compared it with the gender distribution of authors of all published articles, and found that women were underrepresented among authors of retracted articles, and, in particular, of articles retracted for misconduct. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Academic publishing is undergoing a highly transformative process, and many established rules and value systems that are in place, such as traditional peer review (TPR) and preprints, are facing unprecedented challenges, including as a result of post-publication peer review. The integrity and validity of the academic literature continue to rely naively on blind trust, while TPR and preprints continue to fail to effectively screen out errors, fraud, and misconduct. Imperfect TPR invariably results in imperfect papers that have passed through varying levels of rigor of screening and validation. If errors or misconduct were not detected during TPR's editorial screening, but are detected at the post-publication stage, an opportunity is created to correct the academic record. Currently, the most common forms of correcting the academic literature are errata, corrigenda, expressions of concern, and retractions or withdrawals. Some additional measures to correct the literature have emerged, including manuscript versioning, amendments, partial retractions and retract and replace. Preprints can also be corrected if their version is updated. This paper discusses the risks, benefits and limitations of these forms of correcting the academic literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study undertakes an experiment, in which Masters of Business Administration students participate as individual investors, to examine the impact of error sources (management versus press) on the continued influence of retracted disclosures. Given the increasing role of third parties in disseminating information, it is vital to examine the moderating effect of error source, a factor not previously emphasized in research on the continued influence effect. The results show that investors are more susceptible to the continued influence effect when the error is from the press (rather than from management), suggesting that individual investors should be more vigilant about the quality of information provided by external organizations. Additional analysis reveals that the differential effect found is mediated by the level of scepticism experienced by the participants. Unlike previous research, this study's results provide evidence that post‐exposure scepticism may moderate the continued influence effect under the conditions of task familiarity and clarity of actual error. Implications for regulators and researchers are also discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Retractions are among the effective measures to strengthen the self-correction of science and the quality of the literature. When it comes to self-retractions for honest errors, exposing one's own failures is not a trivial matter for researchers. However, self-correcting data, results and/or conclusions has increasingly been perceived as a good research practice, although rewarding such practice challenges traditional models of research assessment. In this context, it is timely to investigate who have self-retracted for honest error in terms of country, field, and gender. We show results on these three factors, focusing on gender, as data are scarce on the representation of female scientists in efforts to set the research record straight. We collected 3,822 retraction records, including research articles, review papers, meta-analyses, and letters under the category “error” from the Retraction Watch Database for the 2010–2021 period. We screened the dataset collected for research articles (2,906) and then excluded retractions by publishers, editors, or third parties, and those mentioning any investigation issues. We analyzed the content of each retraction manually to include only those indicating that they were requested by authors and attributed solely to unintended mistakes. We categorized the records according to country, field, and gender, after selecting research articles with a sole corresponding author. Gender was predicted using Genderize, at a 90% probability threshold for the final sample (n = 281). Our results show that female scientists account for 25% of self-retractions for honest error, with the highest share for women affiliated with US institutions.

On 31st December 2020, The National Science Library of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) released a list of 65 international scientific journals, all of them indexed by the Web of Science, that were said to be potentially in conflict with academic rigour. The list immediately influenced the publication patterns of Chinese researchers. A year later, on 31st December 2021, CAS released a revised and reduced list of 35 questionable journals and said the publishers in the meantime had reacted constructively and improved the procedures of their journals. This study aims to provide an understanding of the motivations and criteria behind the list, partly by reviewing Chinese policy documents and public debates, partly with a quantitative analysis to detect the relative importance of the criteria used to select the journals for the list. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]