1
|
Peng X, Hu D, Guo Y, Jiang H, Wu X, Hu Q. Scientific misconduct responsibility attribution: An empirical study on byline position and team identity in Chinese medical papers. PLoS One 2024; 19:e0308377. [PMID: 39102401 PMCID: PMC11299828 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0308377] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/21/2024] [Accepted: 07/23/2024] [Indexed: 08/07/2024] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The primary objective of this inquiry was to explore the nexus between authorship attribution in medical literature and accountability for scientific impropriety while assessing the influence of authorial multiplicity on the severity of sanctions imposed. METHODS Probit regression models were employed to scrutinize the impact of authorship on assuming accountability for scientific misconduct, and unordered multinomial logistic regression models were used to examine the influence of authorship and the number of bylines on the severity of punitive measures. RESULTS First authors and corresponding authors were significantly more likely to be liable for scientific misconduct than other authors and were more likely to be penalized particularly severely. Furthermore, a negative correlation was observed between the number of authors' affiliations and the severity of punitive measures. CONCLUSION Authorship exerts a pronounced influence on the attribution of accountability in scientific research misconduct, particularly evident in the heightened risk of severe penalties confronting first and corresponding authors owing to their principal roles. Hence, scientific research institutions and journals must delineate authorship specifications meticulously, ascertain authors' contributions judiciously, bolster initiatives aimed at fostering scientific research integrity, and uphold an environment conducive for robust scientific inquiry.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xiaoting Peng
- The Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, ChangSha, Hunan, China
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, School of Life Sciences, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China
| | - Dehua Hu
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, School of Life Sciences, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China
| | - Yi Guo
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, School of Life Sciences, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China
| | - Hao Jiang
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, School of Life Sciences, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China
| | - Xunsheng Wu
- Shenzhen Health Development Research and Data Management Center, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China
| | - Qingyuan Hu
- The Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, ChangSha, Hunan, China
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Tang L, Wang L, Hu G. Research Misconduct Investigations in China's Science Funding System. SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS 2023; 29:39. [PMID: 37991609 DOI: 10.1007/s11948-023-00459-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/18/2022] [Accepted: 10/05/2023] [Indexed: 11/23/2023]
Abstract
As stewards of public money, government funding agencies have the obligation and responsibility to uphold the integrity of funded research. Despite an increasing amount of empirical studies examining research-related misconduct, a majority of these studies focus on retracted publications. How agencies spot funding-relevant wrongdoing and what sanctions the offenders face remain largely unexplored. This is particularly true for public funding agencies in emerging science powers. To amend this oversight, we retrieved and analyzed all publicized investigation results from China's largest basic research funding agency over the period from 2005 to 2021. Our findings reveal that both the "police patrol" and "fire alarm" approaches are used to identify misconduct and deter funding-related fraud in China. The principal triggers for investigations are journal article retractions, whistleblowing, and plagiarism detection software. Among the six funding-related misconduct types publicized and punished, the top three are: (1) fraudulent papers, (2) information fabrication and/or falsification in the research proposal, and (3) proposal plagiarism. The most common administrative sanctions are debarment and reclamation of grants. This article argues that more systematic research and cooperation among stakeholders is needed to cultivate research integrity in emerging science powers like China. Specific training and education should be provided for young scientists to help them avoid the pitfall of academic misconduct.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Li Tang
- School of International Relations and Public Affairs, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200433, China
| | - Linan Wang
- Shanghai Health Development Research Center, Shanghai, 200040, China
| | - Guangyuan Hu
- School of Public Economics and Administration, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, Shanghai, 200433, China.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Ribeiro MD, Kalichman MW, Vasconcelos SMR. Retractions and Rewards in Science: An Open Question for Reviewers and Funders. SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS 2023; 29:26. [PMID: 37403005 DOI: 10.1007/s11948-023-00446-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/11/2022] [Accepted: 05/19/2023] [Indexed: 07/06/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mariana D Ribeiro
- Science Education Program, Institute of Medical Biochemistry Leopoldo de Meis (IBqM)/Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
| | - Michael W Kalichman
- Research Ethics Program, University of California San Diego (UCSD), San Diego, USA
| | - Sonia M R Vasconcelos
- Science Education Program, Institute of Medical Biochemistry Leopoldo de Meis (IBqM)/Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Golden J, Mazzotta CM, Zittel-Barr K. Systemic Obstacles to Addressing Research Misconduct in Higher Education: A Case Study. JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC ETHICS 2023; 21:71-82. [PMID: 34483786 PMCID: PMC8403249 DOI: 10.1007/s10805-021-09438-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 08/19/2021] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
Several widely publicized incidents of academic research misconduct, combined with the politicization of the role of science in public health and policy discourse (e.g., COVID, immunizations) threaten to undermine faith in the integrity of empirical research. Researchers often maintain that peer-review and study replication allow the field to self-police and self-correct; however, stark disparities between official reports of academic research misconduct and self-reports of academic researchers, specifically with regard to data fabrication, belie this argument. Further, systemic imperatives in academic settings often incentivize institutional responses that focus on minimizing reputational harm rather than the impact of fabricated data on the integrity of extant and future research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- James Golden
- grid.468712.e0000 0001 0852 5651Social Work Department, Buffalo State College SUNY, 1300 Elmwood Ave, Buffalo, NY 14222 USA
| | - Catherine M. Mazzotta
- grid.468712.e0000 0001 0852 5651Social Work Department, Buffalo State College SUNY, 1300 Elmwood Ave, Buffalo, NY 14222 USA
| | - Kimberly Zittel-Barr
- grid.468712.e0000 0001 0852 5651Social Work Department, Buffalo State College SUNY, 1300 Elmwood Ave, Buffalo, NY 14222 USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Heibi I, Peroni S. A protocol to gather, characterize and analyze incoming citations of retracted articles. PLoS One 2022; 17:e0270872. [PMID: 35853087 PMCID: PMC9295990 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270872] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/03/2021] [Accepted: 06/08/2022] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
In this article, we present a methodology which takes as input a collection of retracted articles, gathers the entities citing them, characterizes such entities according to multiple dimensions (disciplines, year of publication, sentiment, etc.), and applies a quantitative and qualitative analysis on the collected values. The methodology is composed of four phases: (1) identifying, retrieving, and extracting basic metadata of the entities which have cited a retracted article, (2) extracting and labeling additional features based on the textual content of the citing entities, (3) building a descriptive statistical summary based on the collected data, and finally (4) running a topic modeling analysis. The goal of the methodology is to generate data and visualizations that help understanding possible behaviors related to retraction cases. We present the methodology in a structured step-by-step form following its four phases, discuss its limits and possible workarounds, and list the planned future improvements.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ivan Heibi
- Department of Classical Philology and Italian Studies, Research Centre for Open Scholarly Metadata, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
- Department of Classical Philology and Italian Studies, Digital Humanities Advanced Research Centre (/DH.arc), University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
- * E-mail:
| | - Silvio Peroni
- Department of Classical Philology and Italian Studies, Research Centre for Open Scholarly Metadata, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
- Department of Classical Philology and Italian Studies, Digital Humanities Advanced Research Centre (/DH.arc), University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Rubbo P, Lievore C, Biynkievycz Dos Santos C, Picinin CT, Pilatti LA, Pedroso B. “Research exceptionalism” in the COVID-19 pandemic: an analysis of scientific retractions in Scopus. ETHICS & BEHAVIOR 2022. [DOI: 10.1080/10508422.2022.2080067] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/03/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Priscila Rubbo
- Department of Accounting Sciences, Federal University of Technology – Paraná (UTFPR)
| | - Caroline Lievore
- Department of Accounting Sciences, Federal University of Technology – Paraná (UTFPR)
| | | | - Claudia Tania Picinin
- Postgraduate Program in Production Engineering, Federal University of Technology – Paraná (UTFPR)
| | - Luiz Alberto Pilatti
- Postgraduate Program in Science and Technology Teaching and Production Engineering and Postgraduate Program in Production Engineering, Federal University of Technology – Paraná (UTFPR)
| | - Bruno Pedroso
- Postgraduate Program in Health Sciences and Postgraduate Program in Inclusive Education, State University of Ponta Grossa (UEPG)
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Correction of the Scientific Production: Publisher Performance Evaluation Using a Dataset of 4844 PubMed Retractions. PUBLICATIONS 2022. [DOI: 10.3390/publications10020018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Background. Retraction of problematic scientific articles after publication is one of the mechanisms for correcting the literature available to publishers. The market volume and the business model justify publishers’ ethical involvement in the post-publication quality control (PPQC) of human-health-related articles. The limited information about this subject led us to analyze PubMed-retracted articles and the main retraction reasons grouped by publisher. We propose a score to appraise publisher’s PPQC results. The dataset used for this article consists of 4844 PubMed-retracted papers published between 1.01.2009 and 31.12.2020. Methods. An SDTP score was constructed from the dataset. The calculation formula includes several parameters: speed (article exposure time (ET)), detection rate (percentage of articles whose retraction is initiated by the editor/publisher/institution without the authors’ participation), transparency (percentage of retracted articles available online and the clarity of the retraction notes), and precision (mention of authors’ responsibility and percentage of retractions for reasons other than editorial errors). Results. The 4844 retracted articles were published in 1767 journals by 366 publishers, the average number of retracted articles/journal being 2.74. Forty-five publishers have more than 10 retracted articles, holding 88% of all papers and 79% of journals. Combining our data with data from another study shows that less than 7% of PubMed dataset journals retracted at least one article. Only 10.5% of the retraction notes included the individual responsibility of the authors. Nine of the top 11 publishers had the largest number of retracted articles in 2020. Retraction-reason analysis shows considerable differences between publishers concerning the articles’ ET: median values between 9 and 43 months (mistakes), 9 and 73 months (images), and 10 and 42 months (plagiarism and overlap). The SDTP score shows, from 2018 to 2020, an improvement in PPQC of four publishers in the top 11 and a decrease in the gap between 1st and 11th place. The group of the other 355 publishers also has a positive evolution of the SDTP score. Conclusions. Publishers have to get involved actively and measurably in the post-publication evaluation of scientific products. The introduction of reporting standards for retraction notes and replicable indicators for quantifying publishing QC can help increase the overall quality of scientific literature.
Collapse
|
8
|
Productivity patterns, collaboration and scientific careers of authors with retracted publications in clinical medicine. Scientometrics 2022. [DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-04252-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
|
9
|
Devriendt T, Borry P, Shabani M. Credit and Recognition for Contributions to Data-Sharing Platforms Among Cohort Holders and Platform Developers in Europe: Interview Study. J Med Internet Res 2022; 24:e25983. [PMID: 35023849 PMCID: PMC8796038 DOI: 10.2196/25983] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/24/2020] [Revised: 03/14/2021] [Accepted: 11/19/2021] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The European Commission is funding projects that aim to establish data-sharing platforms. These platforms are envisioned to enhance and facilitate the international sharing of cohort data. Nevertheless, broad data sharing may be restricted by the lack of adequate recognition for those who share data. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study is to describe in depth the concerns about acquiring credit for data sharing within epidemiological research. METHODS A total of 17 participants linked to European Union-funded data-sharing platforms were recruited for a semistructured interview. Transcripts were analyzed using inductive content analysis. RESULTS Interviewees argued that data sharing within international projects could challenge authorship guidelines in multiple ways. Some respondents considered that the acquisition of credit for articles with extensive author lists could be problematic in some instances, such as for junior researchers. In addition, universities may be critical of researchers who share data more often than leading research. Some considered that the evaluation system undervalues data generators and specialists. Respondents generally looked favorably upon alternatives to the current evaluation system to potentially ameliorate these issues. CONCLUSIONS The evaluation system might impede data sharing because it mainly focuses on first and last authorship and undervalues the contributor's work. Further movement of crediting models toward contributorship could potentially address this issue. Appropriate crediting mechanisms that are better aligned with the way science ought to be conducted in the future need to be developed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thijs Devriendt
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Pascal Borry
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Mahsa Shabani
- Metamedica, Faculty of Law and Criminology, UGent, Gent, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
|
11
|
Heibi I, Peroni S. A qualitative and quantitative analysis of open citations to retracted articles: the Wakefield 1998 et al.'s case. Scientometrics 2021; 126:8433-8470. [PMID: 34376878 PMCID: PMC8338205 DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-04097-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/24/2020] [Accepted: 06/30/2021] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
In this article, we show the results of a quantitative and qualitative analysis of open citations on a popular and highly cited retracted paper: “Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis and pervasive developmental disorder in children” by Wakefield et al., published in 1998. The main purpose of our study is to understand the behavior of the publications citing one retracted article and the characteristics of the citations the retracted article accumulated over time. Our analysis is based on a methodology which illustrates how we gathered the data, extracted the topics of the citing articles and visualized the results. The data and services used are all open and free to foster the reproducibility of the analysis. The outcomes concerned the analysis of the entities citing Wakefield et al.’s article and their related in-text citations. We observed a constant increasing number of citations in the last 20 years, accompanied with a constant increment in the percentage of those acknowledging its retraction. Citing articles have started either discussing or dealing with the retraction of Wakefield et al.’s article even before its full retraction happened in 2010. Articles in the social sciences domain citing the Wakefield et al.’s one were among those that have mostly discussed its retraction. In addition, when observing the in-text citations, we noticed that a large number of the citations received by Wakefield et al.’s article has focused on general discussions without recalling strictly medical details, especially after the full retraction. Medical studies did not hesitate in acknowledging the retraction of the Wakefield et al.’s article and often provided strong negative statements on it.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ivan Heibi
- Research Centre for Open Scholarly Metadata, Department of Classical Philology and Italian Studies, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
- Digital Humanities Advanced Research Centre (/DH.Arc), Department of Classical Philology and Italian Studies, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Silvio Peroni
- Research Centre for Open Scholarly Metadata, Department of Classical Philology and Italian Studies, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
- Digital Humanities Advanced Research Centre (/DH.Arc), Department of Classical Philology and Italian Studies, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Fanelli D, Wong J, Moher D. What difference might retractions make? An estimate of the potential epistemic cost of retractions on meta-analyses. Account Res 2021; 29:442-459. [PMID: 34196235 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2021.1947810] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Abstract
The extent to which a retraction might require revising previous scientific estimates and beliefs - which we define as the epistemic cost - is unknown. We collected a sample of 229 meta-analyses published between 2013 and 2016 that had cited a retracted study, assessed whether this study was included in the meta-analytic estimate and, if so, re-calculated the summary effect size without it. The majority (68% of N = 229) of retractions had occurred at least one year prior to the publication of the citing meta-analysis. In 53% of these avoidable citations, the retracted study was cited as a candidate for inclusion, and only in 34% of these meta-analyses (13% of total) the study was explicitly excluded because it had been retracted. Meta-analyses that included retracted studies were published in journals with significantly lower impact factor. Summary estimates without the retracted study were lower than the original if the retraction was due to issues with data or results and higher otherwise, but the effect was small. We conclude that meta-analyses have a problematically high probability of citing retracted articles and of including them in their pooled summaries, but the overall epistemic cost is contained.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniele Fanelli
- Department of Methodology, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK
| | | | - David Moher
- Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Smith EM. Reimagining the peer-review system for translational health science journals. Clin Transl Sci 2021; 14:1210-1221. [PMID: 33963670 PMCID: PMC8301572 DOI: 10.1111/cts.13050] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/16/2020] [Revised: 02/02/2021] [Accepted: 03/08/2021] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Retractions of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) papers in high impact journals, such as The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine, have been panned as major scientific fraud in public media. The initial reaction to this news was to seek out scapegoats and blame individual authors, peer-reviewers, editors, and journals for wrong doing. This paper suggests that scapegoating a few individuals for faulty science is a myopic approach to the more profound problem with peer-review. Peer-review in its current limited form cannot be expected to adequately address the scope and complexity of large interdisciplinary science research collaboration, which is central in translational research. In addition, empirical studies on the effectiveness of traditional peer-review reveal its very real potential for bias and groupthink; as such, expectations regarding the capacity and effectiveness of the current peer review process are unrealistic. This paper proposes a new vision of peer-review in translational science that, on the one hand, would allow for early release of a manuscript to ensure expediency, whereas also creating a forum or a collective of various experts to actively comment, scrutinize, and even build on the research under review. The aim would be to not only generate open discussion and oversight respecting the quality and limitations of the research, but also to assess the extent and the means for that knowledge to translate into social benefit.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elise M. Smith
- Department of Preventive Medicine and Population HealthInstitute for Translational SciencesInstitute for Bioethics and Health HumanitiesUniversity of Texas Medical BranchGalvestonTexasUSA
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Shah TA, Gul S, Bashir S, Ahmad S, Huertas A, Oliveira A, Gulzar F, Najar AH, Chakraborty K. Influence of accessibility (open and toll-based) of scholarly publications on retractions. Scientometrics 2021. [DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-03990-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
|
15
|
Hesselmann F, Reinhart M. Cycles of invisibility: The limits of transparency in dealing with scientific misconduct. SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE 2021; 51:414-438. [PMID: 33234058 DOI: 10.1177/0306312720975201] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/11/2023]
Abstract
Sanctions for plagiarism, falsification and fabrication in research are primarily symbolic. This paper investigates sanctions for scientific misconduct and their preceding investigation processes as visible and legitimate symbols. Using three different data sources (retraction notices, expert interviews, and a survey of scientists), we show that sanctions for scientific misconduct operate within a cycle of visibility, in which sanctions are highly visible, while investigation and decision-making procedures remain mostly invisible. This corresponds to high levels of acceptance of sanctions in the scientific community, but a low acceptance of the respective authorities. Such a punitiveness in turn exacerbates confidentiality concerns, so that authorities become even more secretive. We argue that punitiveness towards scientific misconduct is driven by such a cycle of invisibility.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Felicitas Hesselmann
- Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany
- Deutsches Zentrum für Hochschul- und Wissenschaftsforschung, Germany
| | - Martin Reinhart
- Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany
- Deutsches Zentrum für Hochschul- und Wissenschaftsforschung, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Lievore C, Rubbo P, Dos Santos CB, Picinin CT, Pilatti LA. Research ethics: a profile of retractions from world class universities. Scientometrics 2021; 126:6871-6889. [PMID: 34054160 PMCID: PMC8141102 DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-03987-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/20/2020] [Accepted: 04/01/2021] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
Abstract
This study aims to profile the scientific retractions published in journals indexed in the Web of Science database from 2010 to 2019, from researchers at the top 20 World Class Universities according to the Times Higher Education global ranking of 2020. Descriptive statistics, Pearson's correlation coefficient, and simple linear regression were used to analyze the data. Of the 330 analyzed retractions, Harvard University had the highest number of retractions and the main reason for retraction was data results. We conclude that the universities with a higher ranking tend to have a lower rate of retraction.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Caroline Lievore
- Federal University of Technology - Paraná (UTFPR), Ponta Grossa, Brazil
| | - Priscila Rubbo
- Federal University of Technology - Paraná (UTFPR), Ponta Grossa, Brazil
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
17
|
Dal-Ré R, Ayuso C. For how long and with what relevance do genetics articles retracted due to research misconduct remain active in the scientific literature. Account Res 2020; 28:280-296. [PMID: 33124464 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2020.1835479] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
Abstract
We aimed to quantify the number of pre- and post-retraction citations obtained by genetics articles retracted due to research misconduct. All retraction notices available in the Retraction Watch database for genetics articles published in 1970-2016 were assessed. The reasons for retraction were fabrication/falsification and plagiarism. The endpoints were the number of citations of retracted articles and when and how journals reported on retractions and whether this was published on PubMed.Four hundred and sixty retracted genetics articles were cited 34,487 times; 7,945 (23%) were post-retraction citations. Median time to retraction and time to last citation were 3.2 and 3 years, respectively. Most (96%) had a PubMed retraction notice, One percent of these were totally removed from journal websites altogether, and 4% had no information available on either the online or PDF versions. Ninety percent of citations were from articles retracted due to falsification/fabrication. The percentage of post-retraction citations was significantly higher in the case of plagiarism (42%) than in the case of fabrication/falsification (21.5%) (p<0.001). Median time to retraction was shorter (1.3 years) in the case of plagiarism than for fabrication/falsification (4.8 years, p<0.001). The retraction was more frequently reported in the PDFs (70%) for the fabrication/falsification cases than for the plagiarism cases (43%, p<0.001). The highest rate of retracted papers due to falsification/fabrication was among authors in the USA, and the highest rate for plagiarism was in China.Although most retractions were appropriately handled by journals, the gravest issue was that median time to retraction for articles retracted for falsification/fabrication was nearly 5 years, earning close to 6800 post-retraction citations. Journals should implement processes to speed-up the retraction process that will help to minimize post-retraction citations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rafael Dal-Ré
- Epidemiology Unit, Health Research Institute-Fundación Jiménez Díaz University Hospital, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, (IIS-FJD, UAM), Madrid, Spain
| | - Carmen Ayuso
- Department of Genetics and Genomics, Health Research Institute-Fundación Jiménez Díaz University Hospital, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, (IIS-FJD, UAM), Madrid, Spain.,Center for Biomedical Network Research on Rare Diseases (CIBERER), ISCIII, Madrid, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Abalkina A, Libman A. The real costs of plagiarism: Russian governors, plagiarized PhD theses, and infrastructure in Russian regions. Scientometrics 2020. [DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03716-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
|
19
|
Feng L, Yuan J, Yang L. An observation framework for retracted publications in multiple dimensions. Scientometrics 2020. [DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03702-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
|
20
|
Horton J, Krishna Kumar D, Wood A. Detecting academic fraud using Benford law: The case of Professor James Hunton. RESEARCH POLICY 2020. [DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2020.104084] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
|
21
|
Collaboration and its influence on retraction based on retracted publications during 1978–2017. Scientometrics 2020. [DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03636-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
|
22
|
Tang L, Hu G, Sui Y, Yang Y, Cao C. Retraction: The "Other Face" of Research Collaboration? SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS 2020; 26:1681-1708. [PMID: 32215814 DOI: 10.1007/s11948-020-00209-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/20/2018] [Accepted: 03/12/2020] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
Abstract
The last two decades have witnessed the rising prevalence of both co-publishing and retraction. Focusing on research collaboration, this paper utilizes a unique dataset to investigate factors contributing to retraction probability and elapsed time between publication and retraction. Data analysis reveals that the majority of retracted papers are multi-authored and that repeat offenders are collaboration prone. Yet, all things being equal, collaboration, in and of itself, does not increase the likelihood of producing flawed or fraudulent research, at least in the form of retraction. That holds for all retractions and also retractions due to falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism (FFP). The research also finds that publications with authors from elite universities are less likely to be retracted, which is particularly true for retractions due to FFP. China stands out with the fastest retracting speed compared to other countries. Possible explanations, limitations, and policy implications are also discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Li Tang
- School of International Relations and Public Affairs, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200433, China.
| | - Guangyuan Hu
- Shanghai University of Finance Economics, Shanghai, 200433, China
| | - Yang Sui
- Kearney A.T, Shanghai, 200433, China
| | - Yuhan Yang
- Shanghai University of Finance Economics, Shanghai, 200433, China
- College of Finance, Chongqing Technology and Business University, Chongqing, 400067, China
| | - Cong Cao
- Faculty of Business, University of Nottingham Ningbo China, Ningbo, 315100, China.
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Wang X, Ran Y, Jia T. Measuring similarity in co-occurrence data using ego-networks. CHAOS (WOODBURY, N.Y.) 2020; 30:013101. [PMID: 32013468 DOI: 10.1063/1.5129036] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/24/2019] [Accepted: 12/14/2019] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
Abstract
The co-occurrence association is widely observed in many empirical data. Mining the information in co-occurrence data is essential for advancing our understanding of systems such as social networks, ecosystems, and brain networks. Measuring similarity of entities is one of the important tasks, which can usually be achieved using a network-based approach. Here, we show that traditional methods based on the aggregated network can bring unwanted indirect relationships. To cope with this issue, we propose a similarity measure based on the ego network of each entity, which effectively considers the change of an entity's centrality from one ego network to another. The index proposed is easy to calculate and has a clear physical meaning. Using two different data sets, we compare the new index with other existing ones. We find that the new index outperforms the traditional network-based similarity measures, and it can sometimes surpass the embedding method. In the meanwhile, the measure by the new index is weakly correlated with those by other methods, hence providing a different dimension to quantify similarities in co-occurrence data. Altogether, our work makes an extension in the network-based similarity measure and can be potentially applied in several related tasks.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xiaomeng Wang
- College of Computer and Information Science, Southwest University, Beibei, Chongqing 400715, People's Republic of China
| | - Yijun Ran
- College of Computer and Information Science, Southwest University, Beibei, Chongqing 400715, People's Republic of China
| | - Tao Jia
- College of Computer and Information Science, Southwest University, Beibei, Chongqing 400715, People's Republic of China
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Hussinger K, Pellens M. Guilt by association: How scientific misconduct harms prior collaborators. RESEARCH POLICY 2019. [DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2018.01.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
|
25
|
Walsh JP, Lee YN, Tang L. Pathogenic organization in science: Division of labor and retractions. RESEARCH POLICY 2019. [DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2018.09.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/28/2022]
|
26
|
Schmidt M. An analysis of the validity of retraction annotation in pubmed and the web of science. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 2017. [DOI: 10.1002/asi.23913] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Marion Schmidt
- Deutsches Zentrum für Hochschul- und Wissenschaftsforschung GmbH (DZHW); German Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies (DZHW), Schützenstraße 6a; Berlin 10117 Germany
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Hesselmann F, Graf V, Schmidt M, Reinhart M. The visibility of scientific misconduct: A review of the literature on retracted journal articles. CURRENT SOCIOLOGY. LA SOCIOLOGIE CONTEMPORAINE 2017; 65:814-845. [PMID: 28943647 PMCID: PMC5600261 DOI: 10.1177/0011392116663807] [Citation(s) in RCA: 46] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/07/2023]
Abstract
Retractions of scientific articles are becoming the most relevant institution for making sense of scientific misconduct. An increasing number of retracted articles, mainly attributed to misconduct, is currently providing a new empirical basis for research about scientific misconduct. This article reviews the relevant research literature from an interdisciplinary context. Furthermore, the results from these studies are contextualized sociologically by asking how scientific misconduct is made visible through retractions. This study treats retractions as an emerging institution that renders scientific misconduct visible, thus, following up on the sociology of deviance and its focus on visibility. The article shows that retractions, by highlighting individual cases of misconduct and general policies for preventing misconduct while obscuring the actors and processes through which retractions are effected, produce highly fragmented patterns of visibility. These patterns resemble the bifurcation in current justice systems.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Verena Graf
- German Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies (DZHW), Germany
| | - Marion Schmidt
- German Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies (DZHW), Germany
| | - Martin Reinhart
- Martin Reinhart, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Social Sciences, Unter den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Mongeon P, Smith E, Joyal B, Larivière V. The rise of the middle author: Investigating collaboration and division of labor in biomedical research using partial alphabetical authorship. PLoS One 2017; 12:e0184601. [PMID: 28910344 PMCID: PMC5599011 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0184601] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/13/2016] [Accepted: 08/14/2017] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
Contemporary biomedical research is performed by increasingly large teams. Consequently, an increasingly large number of individuals are being listed as authors in the bylines, which complicates the proper attribution of credit and responsibility to individual authors. Typically, more importance is given to the first and last authors, while it is assumed that the others (the middle authors) have made smaller contributions. However, this may not properly reflect the actual division of labor because some authors other than the first and last may have made major contributions. In practice, research teams may differentiate the main contributors from the rest by using partial alphabetical authorship (i.e., by listing middle authors alphabetically, while maintaining a contribution-based order for more substantial contributions). In this paper, we use partial alphabetical authorship to divide the authors of all biomedical articles in the Web of Science published over the 1980-2015 period in three groups: primary authors, middle authors, and supervisory authors. We operationalize the concept of middle author as those who are listed in alphabetical order in the middle of an authors' list. Primary and supervisory authors are those listed before and after the alphabetical sequence, respectively. We show that alphabetical ordering of middle authors is frequent in biomedical research, and that the prevalence of this practice is positively correlated with the number of authors in the bylines. We also find that, for articles with 7 or more authors, the average proportion of primary, middle and supervisory authors is independent of the team size, more than half of the authors being middle authors. This suggests that growth in authors lists are not due to an increase in secondary contributions (or middle authors) but, rather, in equivalent increases of all types of roles and contributions (including many primary authors and many supervisory authors). Nevertheless, we show that the relative contribution of alphabetically ordered middle authors to the overall production of knowledge in the biomedical field has greatly increased over the last 35 years.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Philippe Mongeon
- École de bibliothéconomie et des sciences de l’information, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Elise Smith
- École de bibliothéconomie et des sciences de l’information, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Bruno Joyal
- Department of Mathematics and Statistics, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Vincent Larivière
- École de bibliothéconomie et des sciences de l’information, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Observatoire des Sciences et des Technologies (OST), Centre Interuniversitaire de Recherche sur la Science et la Technologie (CIRST), Université du Québec à Montréal, Succ. Centre-Ville, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Shuai X, Rollins J, Moulinier I, Custis T, Edmunds M, Schilder F. A Multidimensional Investigation of the Effects of Publication Retraction on Scholarly Impact. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 2017. [DOI: 10.1002/asi.23826] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Xin Shuai
- Research & Development Group, Thomson Reuters; 610 Opperman Dr. St. Paul MN 55123
| | - Jason Rollins
- Clarivate Analytics; 50 California St. San Francisco CA 94111
| | - Isabelle Moulinier
- Research & Development Group, Thomson Reuters; 610 Opperman Dr. St. Paul MN 55123
| | - Tonya Custis
- Research & Development Group, Thomson Reuters; 610 Opperman Dr. St. Paul MN 55123
| | - Mathilda Edmunds
- Clarivate Analytics; 1500 Spring Garden St. Philadelphia PA 19130
| | - Frank Schilder
- Research & Development Group, Thomson Reuters; 610 Opperman Dr. St. Paul MN 55123
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Stvilia B, Hinnant CC, Wu S, Worrall A, Lee DJ, Burnett K, Burnett G, Kazmer MM, Marty PF. Toward collaborator selection and determination of data ownership and publication authorship in research collaborations. LIBRARY & INFORMATION SCIENCE RESEARCH 2017. [DOI: 10.1016/j.lisr.2017.03.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
|
31
|
Larivière V, Desrochers N, Macaluso B, Mongeon P, Paul-Hus A, Sugimoto CR. Contributorship and division of labor in knowledge production. SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE 2016; 46:417-435. [PMID: 28948891 DOI: 10.1177/0306312716650046] [Citation(s) in RCA: 117] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/03/2023]
Abstract
Scientific authorship has been increasingly complemented with contributorship statements. While such statements are said to ensure more equitable credit and responsibility attribution, they also provide an opportunity to examine the roles and functions that authors play in the construction of knowledge and the relationship between these roles and authorship order. Drawing on a comprehensive and multidisciplinary dataset of 87,002 documents in which contributorship statements are found, this article examines the forms that division of labor takes across disciplines, the relationships between various types of contributions, as well as the relationships between the contribution types and various indicators of authors' seniority. It shows that scientific work is more highly divided in medical disciplines than in mathematics, physics, and disciplines of the social sciences, and that, with the exception of medicine, the writing of the paper is the task most often associated with authorship. The results suggest a clear distinction between contributions that could be labeled as 'technical' and those that could be considered 'conceptual': While conceptual tasks are typically associated with authors with higher seniority, technical tasks are more often performed by younger scholars. Finally, results provide evidence of a U-shaped relationship between extent of contribution and author order: In all disciplines, first and last authors typically contribute to more tasks than middle authors. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of the results for the reward system of science.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vincent Larivière
- École de bibliothéconomie et des sciences de l'information, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada; Observatoire des sciences et des technologies, (OST-CIRST), Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada
| | - Nadine Desrochers
- École de bibliothéconomie et des sciences de l'information, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada
| | - Benoît Macaluso
- École de bibliothéconomie et des sciences de l'information, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada; Observatoire des sciences et des technologies, (OST-CIRST), Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada
| | - Philippe Mongeon
- École de bibliothéconomie et des sciences de l'information, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada
| | - Adèle Paul-Hus
- École de bibliothéconomie et des sciences de l'information, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada
| | - Cassidy R Sugimoto
- School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, USA
| |
Collapse
|