Fractures in the academic publishing business model: a stakeholder perspective DOI Creative Commons
Yves Fassin, Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva

Science and Public Policy, Journal Year: 2024, Volume and Issue: unknown

Published: Dec. 13, 2024

Abstract The recent listing of Springer-Nature on the Frankfurt stock exchange triggers debate for more fairness and equity in academic publishing business model.

Language: Английский

The Existence of Stealth Corrections in Scientific Literature—A Threat to Scientific Integrity DOI Creative Commons
René Aquarius, Floris Schoeters, Nick Wise

et al.

Learned Publishing, Journal Year: 2025, Volume and Issue: 38(2)

Published: Feb. 19, 2025

One of the cornerstones publication integrity is thorough maintenance scientific record to ensure trustworthiness its content. This includes strict and transparent record-keeping when implementing post-publication changes through a clearly visible corrigendum or erratum, which provides details reasons for them (ICMJE 2024). However, such not always practised as stealth changes, literature without any accompanying note, have been observed. notable kind change retraction: published papers simply disappearing from website journal formal retraction notice (Teixeira da Silva 2016; Teixeira Daly Besides retractions, second problematic type exists in literature: corrections. We define correction at least one made article, providing note other indicator that was temporarily permanently altered. Stealth corrections occasionally described by online blogs (Bimler 2021; Schneider 2020), but itself has yet address numerous own corpus. In this we provide examples found total 131 articles were affected corrections, across variety large small publishers (Table 1). most cases, content changed 2). An overview all (# 1-131) can be Table S1, also contains links PubPeer posts additional detail. Five with eventually received an official 17 reverted their original version S1). Nine expressions concern published, 11 retracted Additionally, seven book chapters removed The presented paper demonstrate fundamental mostly ignored problem literature. Correct documentation transparency are utmost importance uphold science. Post-publication need clear readers understand if, why, made. little attention paid alterations. For example, Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) flowcharts indicating needed case of: plagiarism 20) (COPE 2021b), author removal 2-9) 2021a) inappropriate image manipulation article 10-11, 18-19, 21-101) no specific exist affiliations 1–2), consent ethics statements 129-130), handling editor 102-103), allocation issue 104-128). amendments silently, will give rise questions regarding journal, editors publisher, might undermine validity whole. It particularly concerning publications serious problems duplication data receive cases issues, could mask retraction, potentially benefit journals, authors engaging misconduct. Future likely unaware ever present, lead less critical assessment these publications. Readers our findings even get impression actively trying hide problems, where journal's Editor-in-chief listed stealthily corrected 19, 7 months after discovered). Or publisher moved authored special "section", different part MDPI infrastructure linked issue, possibly order meet criteria Directory Open Access Journals (DOAJ) question then becomes how incentivise transparency; encourage journals notices instead resorting corrections? definitions term "correction." Situations become complex very quickly often post preliminary pre-publication versions while they undergoing setting pre-prints hosting platform. What precise moment cases? If anything during stages, count Should undocumented, replacing images results phase publishing process still regarded not? Another complicating factor use internal guidelines These leave room interpretation reader, Elsevier: "If […] new material should replace accepted may consider erratum corrigendum" (Elsevier Guidelines lack information make decision topic, MDPI's guidelines, do describe what removing (MDPI abovementioned COPE help circumvent offer publisher-independent guidance adequately types add another threat publishing, besides previously phenomena mills (Bishop Abalkina 2023; Candal-Pedreira et al. 2022; Else Van Noorden 2021), fake peer review (Oviedo-García 2024) abuse issues (Mills, Mertkan, Onurkan Aliusta Authors heart fuelled harsh publish-or-perish pressure academia (Al-Adawi, Ali, Al-Zakwani Vasconez-Gonzalez adequate exclusively responsibility publishers, editorial boards. Academic seen safeguards (Desai Shortell 2011; Marusic 2010), come into question. strongly recommend every change, version, publicly logged interest transparency. long term, ideally automatic process, built management systems, Editorial Manager; time updated, would recorded article's public-facing metadata. fully approach allow determinations whether consequential not, rather than relying editors' discretion. Automating logging impossible, giving assurance transparently declared. enable indexing services, Web Science PubMed, track incorporate evaluation processes. short services document identified sanctions question, index repeat offenders. extremely difficult detect ask community stay vigilant report them. Reporting preferably take place public platform necessary long-term documentation. monitor created spreadsheet listing (find it here). invite interested forward link detailing us, so spreadsheet. R.A.: conceptualization, curation, analysis, investigation, methodology, supervision, validation, writing – draft, editing. F.S.: N.W.: A.G.: G.C.: thank Dorothy Bishop, Jana Christopher David Bimler proofreading manuscript valuable feedback. (anonymous) science sleuths who reported corrections: your work much appreciated. Nick Wise research manager Taylor & Francis. final submitted before he started working supports study available Supporting Information article. S1. collected grouped per correction. aLast assessed: December 2, 2024. Please note: responsible functionality supporting supplied authors. Any queries (other missing content) directed corresponding

Language: Английский

Citations

1

Scientific Productivity and Retracted Literature of Authors with Kazakhstani Affiliations During 2013–2023 DOI
Kadyrzhan Smagulov, Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva

Journal of Academic Ethics, Journal Year: 2025, Volume and Issue: unknown

Published: April 1, 2025

Language: Английский

Citations

0

What’s so special about special issues: Highlighting a central role of parasitology to support specific innovations and advance progress within our discipline DOI Creative Commons
John Ellis, Cinzia Cantacessi, J. Russell Stothard

et al.

Parasitology, Journal Year: 2025, Volume and Issue: unknown, P. 1 - 5

Published: April 14, 2025

Language: Английский

Citations

0

The issue with special issues DOI

Alison Abritis,

Adam I. Marcus, Ivan Oransky

et al.

Accountability in Research, Journal Year: 2024, Volume and Issue: unknown, P. 1 - 2

Published: Sept. 27, 2024

Language: Английский

Citations

1

On the (ab)use of special issues in scholarly journals DOI
Salim Moussa

Accountability in Research, Journal Year: 2024, Volume and Issue: unknown, P. 1 - 2

Published: Dec. 10, 2024

Language: Английский

Citations

0

Fractures in the academic publishing business model: a stakeholder perspective DOI Creative Commons
Yves Fassin, Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva

Science and Public Policy, Journal Year: 2024, Volume and Issue: unknown

Published: Dec. 13, 2024

Abstract The recent listing of Springer-Nature on the Frankfurt stock exchange triggers debate for more fairness and equity in academic publishing business model.

Language: Английский

Citations

0