Journal of Economic Surveys,
Journal Year:
2024,
Volume and Issue:
unknown
Published: Oct. 16, 2024
Abstract
Meta‐research
has
become
increasingly
popular
and
provided
interesting
insights
on
what
can
go
well
wrong
with
research
practices
scientific
studies.
Many
stakeholders
are
taking
actions
to
try
solve
problems
biases
identified
through
meta‐research.
However,
very
often
there
is
little
or
no
evidence
that
specific
recommendations
may
actually
lead
improvements
a
favorable
benefit‐harm
ratio.
The
current
commentary
offers
an
eclectic
overview
of
we
have
learned
from
meta‐research
efforts
(mostly
observational,
but
also
some
quasi‐experimental
experimental
work)
the
implications
this
be
for
changing
practices.
Areas
discussed
include
study
(and
differentiation)
genuine
effects
biases,
fraud
(including
impact
new
technologies),
peer
review,
replication
reproducibility
checks,
transparency
indicators,
interface
reward
systems.
offered
all
these
fronts
empirical
sometimes
pertains
even
large
extreme
biases.
Continued
surveys
results
offer
timely
updates
status
its
as
change
markedly
over
time.
should
seen
part
research,
not
separate
it,
in
their
concurrent
evolution.
bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory),
Journal Year:
2024,
Volume and Issue:
unknown
Published: Sept. 17, 2024
ABSTRACT
Citation
metrics
are
widely
used
in
research
appraisal,
but
they
provide
incomplete
views
of
scientists’
impact
and
track
record.
Other
indicators
practices
should
be
linked
to
citation
data.
We
have
updated
a
Scopus-based
database
highly-cited
scientists
(top-2%
each
scientific
subfield
according
composite
indicator)
incorporate
retraction
Using
data
from
the
Retraction
Watch
(RWDB),
records
were
Scopus
Of
55,237
items
RWDB
as
August
15,
2024,
we
excluded
non-retractions,
retractions
clearly
not
due
any
author
error,
where
paper
had
been
republished,
linkable
records.
Eventually
39,468
eligible
Scopus.
Among
217,097
top-cited
career-long
223,152
single
recent
year
(2023)
impact,
7,083
(3.3%)
8,747
(4.0%),
respectively,
at
least
one
retraction.
Scientists
with
retracted
publications
younger
publication
age,
higher
self-citation
rates,
larger
volume
than
those
without
publications.
Retractions
more
common
life
sciences
rare
or
nonexistent
several
other
disciplines.
In
developing
countries,
very
high
proportions
(highest
Senegal
(66.7%),
Ecuador
(28.6%)
Pakistan
(27.8%)
lists).
Variability
rates
across
fields
countries
suggests
differences
practices,
scrutiny,
ease
Addition
enhances
granularity
profiles,
aiding
responsible
evaluation.
However,
caution
is
needed
when
interpreting
retractions,
do
always
signify
misconduct;
further
analysis
on
case-by-case
basis
essential.
The
hopefully
resource
for
meta-research
deeper
insights
into
practices.
PLoS Biology,
Journal Year:
2025,
Volume and Issue:
23(1), P. e3002999 - e3002999
Published: Jan. 30, 2025
Retractions
are
becoming
increasingly
common
but
still
account
for
a
small
minority
of
published
papers.
It
would
be
useful
to
generate
databases
where
the
presence
retractions
can
linked
impact
metrics
each
scientist.
We
have
thus
incorporated
retraction
data
in
an
updated
Scopus-based
database
highly
cited
scientists
(top
2%
scientific
subfield
according
composite
citation
indicator).
Using
from
Retraction
Watch
(RWDB),
records
were
Scopus
data.
Of
55,237
items
RWDB
as
August
15,
2024,
we
excluded
non-retractions,
clearly
not
due
any
author
error,
paper
had
been
republished,
and
linkable
records.
Eventually,
39,468
eligible
Scopus.
Among
217,097
top-cited
career-long
223,152
single
recent
year
(2023)
impact,
7,083
(3.3%)
8,747
(4.0%),
respectively,
at
least
1
retraction.
Scientists
with
retracted
publications
younger
publication
age,
higher
self-citation
rates,
larger
volume
than
those
without
publications.
more
life
sciences
rare
or
nonexistent
several
other
disciplines.
In
developing
countries,
very
high
proportions
(highest
Senegal
(66.7%),
Ecuador
(28.6%),
Pakistan
(27.8%)
lists).
Variability
rates
across
fields
countries
suggests
differences
research
practices,
scrutiny,
ease
Addition
enhances
granularity
scientists’
profiles,
aiding
responsible
evaluation.
However,
caution
is
needed
when
interpreting
retractions,
they
do
always
signify
misconduct;
further
analysis
on
case-by-case
basis
essential.
The
should
hopefully
provide
resource
meta-research
deeper
insights
into
practices.
Publications,
Journal Year:
2025,
Volume and Issue:
13(1), P. 3 - 3
Published: Jan. 4, 2025
This
article
discusses
current
methods
for
ranking
researchers
and
proposes
a
new
metric,
the
output-normalized
score
(OnS),
which
considers
number
of
publications,
citations,
coauthors,
author’s
position
within
each
publication.
The
proposed
OnS
offers
balanced
approach
to
evaluating
researcher’s
scientific
contributions
while
addressing
limitations
widely
used
metrics
such
as
h-index
its
modifications.
It
favors
publications
with
fewer
coauthors
giving
significant
weight
both
in
publication
total
citations.
Hellenic Journal of Cardiology,
Journal Year:
2025,
Volume and Issue:
unknown
Published: Jan. 1, 2025
Under
diverse
contributing
factors
in
different
scientific
micro-environments,
the
number
of
authors
who
publish
extreme
numbers
full
articles
a
single
year
has
increased.
Cardiology
is
subfield
that
largest
share
with
publishing
behavior
than
any
other
science
(outside
physics).
Between
2000
and
2022,
137
Cardiovascular
System
(CVS,
Science-Metrix
classification)
have
published
over
60
at
least
one
calendar
are
also
highly-cited.
The
majority
(70/137)
from
Europe.
All
7
countries
highest
prevalence
CVS
per
million
population
European
countries.
Issues
massive
authorship
papers
by
administrative
leaders
discussed,
including
arguments
favor
sustaining
this
practice
-
refutation
these
arguments.
Other
major
contributors
to
phenomenon
publications
clinical
trials
epidemiological
studies
highly-cited
guidelines.
Micro-environments
instrumental
creating
both
developed
less
Listing
contributions
does
not
solve
problem
since
gamed;
metrics
probe
gaming
nevertheless
available.
Eventually,
carries
credit
accountability.
Number
metric
can
be
heavily
gamed.
Emphasis
should
given
what
makes
impact
on
human
lives.
Open Research Europe,
Journal Year:
2025,
Volume and Issue:
5, P. 21 - 21
Published: April 24, 2025
This
essay
examines
senior
researchers’
professional
responsibilities
in
fostering
ethical
research
practices
within
their
teams,
as
outlined
the
ALLEA
European
Code
of
Conduct
for
Research
Integrity.
Senior
researchers
have
an
important
role
preventing
misconduct
and
promoting
a
supportive
academic
environment.
However,
pressures
academia
-
particularly
‘publish
or
perish’
culture
can
lead
to
stress
potentially
unethical
practices,
including
power
misuse,
exploitation,
neglect
supervisory
responsibilities.
This
explores
challenges
face
fulfilling
highlights
‘slow
science’
approach
targeted
training
prioritize
quality
over
quantity
promote
better
supervision
practices.
