Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
…
2 pages
1 file
Retractions should be open-access as per norms of publication ethics. A recent retraction in Science was placed behind closed access. This letter was submitted to Science and in response, the Letters editor has kindly noted that the mentioned retraction has now been made open access.
Biochemia Medica, 2014
This evidence-based opinion piece gives a short overview of the increase in retractions of publications in scientific journals and discusses various reasons for that increase. Also discussed are some of the recent prominent cases of scientific misconduct, the number of authors with multiple retractions, and problems with reproducibility of published research. Finally, some of the effects of faulty research on science and society, as well as possible solutions are discussed.
Scientometrics, 2018
Retractions are rare in science, but there is growing concern about the impact retracted papers have. We present data on the retracted paper in the journal Science, between 1983 and 2017. Each year, approximately 2.6 papers are retracted; that is about 0.34% of the papers published in the journal. 30 % of the retracted papers are retracted within one year of publication. Some papers are retracted almost 12 years after publication. 51 % of the retracted papers are retracted due to honest mistakes. Smaller research teams of 2 to 4 scientists are responsible for a disproportionately larger share of the retracted papers especially when it comes to retractions due to honest mistakes. In 60 % of cases all authors sign the retraction notice.
Diametros , 2022
This article presents the results of a quantitative and qualitative analysis of retraction notices from philosophy journals with global reach. The analysis is based on the Retraction Watch Database and carried out with respect to the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics. In quantitative terms, the sample consists of only 0.48% of the records in the entire database. Hence, the statistics of publication retractions presented here can only form the basis for a case study. The article attempts to lay out the most common reasons for the retraction of philosophy articles following the typology presented in COPE documents. Our systematic approach shows that the normative regulation of publication retraction should be considered inadequate for the publishing practice in philosophy.
Journal of Medical Ethics, 2008
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.
Ethics in Progress, 2023
A prevailing lay understanding of retraction in the scientific literature is to correct for misconduct and honest errors. Nonetheless, though historically rare, retractions to limit the spread of results deemed socially harmful (i.e., information hazards), have gained increasing traction and become increasingly common. This study sought primarily to determine the extent to which information hazard-based retraction is supported in the scientific community and as a secondary goal whether individual difference variables moderate receptivity. We tasked a diverse sample of researchers across various disciplines who use social media to evaluate scenarios in which a paper was retracted for misconduct, honest errors, and information hazards. Overall, support for retraction on the basis of information hazards was low, suggesting that researchers overwhelmingly support academic freedom as a concept. Nonetheless, left-leaning ideologies predicted slightly greater defensibility of the practice among individuals early in their careers. We provide training suggestions to mitigate reactance toward controversial scientific findings.
In academic publishing, a retraction is the action by which a published paper in an academic journal is removed from the journal. Online journals typically remove the retracted article from online access.
DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 2019
Retraction is the withdrawal of published article after it is found that the authors did not ensure integrity in conducting and reporting their research activities. The bibliometric information of 4716 document categorised as retractions in Science Citation Index, Web of Science was downloaded and analysed to understand trend, pattern and reasons of retraction. The results showed that retractions had increased during the ten-year period, 2008-2017. The main reasons for retractions were plagiarism, falsified data, manipulation of images and figures. It was also found that just 40 out of 4716 retraction notices had explicitly stated reasons for retracting the published articles. The open access journals had more number of retractions as compared to subscription based journals. The study will guide library professionals and research scholars towards a better comprehension of the reasons behind retractions in science discipline in the ten-year period. They would be better equipped to steer clear of inauthentic publications in their citations and references.
Research Integrity and Peer Review
Background Retraction is a mechanism for alerting readers to unreliable material and other problems in the published scientific and scholarly record. Retracted publications generally remain visible and searchable, but the intention of retraction is to mark them as “removed” from the citable record of scholarship. However, in practice, some retracted articles continue to be treated by researchers and the public as valid content as they are often unaware of the retraction. Research over the past decade has identified a number of factors contributing to the unintentional spread of retracted research. The goal of the Reducing the Inadvertent Spread of Retracted Science: Shaping a Research and Implementation Agenda (RISRS) project was to develop an actionable agenda for reducing the inadvertent spread of retracted science. This included identifying how retraction status could be more thoroughly disseminated, and determining what actions are feasible and relevant for particular stakeholde...
Transfer technológií bulletin, 2022
IBER, 107. Abril 2022. Aprender Ciencias Sociales a través del cómic, 2022
Otkrytoe Obrazovanie (Moskva), 2021
Métamorphoses de l'Acte Juridique
International Journal of Management, 2020
Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy, 2023
Kenmare Chronicle, 2024
Arabi : journal of Arabic studies, 2023
BMC chemistry, 2021
International Journal of Public Administration, 2019
Acta Scientiarum. Human and Social Sciences, 2008
Analytical Chemistry, 1976
IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 1996