Updated science-wide author databases of standardized citation indicators including retraction data

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.

Language: Английский

---

Publication Ethics in the Era of Artificial Intelligence

Journal of Korean Medical Science, Journal Year: 2024, Volume and Issue: 39(33)

Published: Jan. 1, 2024

The application of new technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI), to science affects the way and methodology in which research is conducted. While responsible use AI brings many innovations benefits humanity, its unethical poses a serious threat scientific integrity literature. Even absence malicious use, Chatbot output itself, software based on AI, carries risk containing biases, distortions, irrelevancies, misrepresentations plagiarism. Therefore, complex algorithms raises concerns about bias, transparency accountability, requiring development ethical rules protect integrity. Unfortunately, writing codes cannot keep up with pace implementation technology. main purpose this narrative review inform readers, authors, reviewers editors approaches publication ethics era AI. It specifically focuses tips how disclose your manuscript, avoid publishing entirely AI-generated text, current standards for retraction.

Language: Английский

---

Linking citation and retraction data reveals the demographics of scientific retractions among highly cited authors

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.

Language: Английский

---

Quantitative research assessment: using metrics against gamed metrics

Internal and Emergency Medicine, Journal Year: 2023, Volume and Issue: 19(1), P. 39 - 47

Published: Nov. 3, 2023

Quantitative bibliometric indicators are widely used and misused for research assessments. Some metrics have acquired major importance in shaping rewarding the careers of millions scientists. Given their perceived prestige, they may be gamed current "publish or perish" "get cited environment. This review examines several gaming practices, including authorship-based, citation-based, editorial-based, journal-based as well with outright fabrication. Different patterns discussed, massive authorship papers without meriting credit (gift authorship), team work over-attribution to too many people (salami slicing credit), self-citations, citation farms, H-index gaming, journalistic (editorial) nepotism, journal impact factor paper mills spurious content papers, publications studies demanding designs. For all those quantitative analyses able help detection placing them into perspective. A portfolio also include best practices (e.g., data sharing, code protocol registration, replications) poor signs image manipulation). Rigorous, reproducible, transparent that inform about strengthen legacy appraisals scientific work.

Language: Английский

---

Taking it back: A pilot study of a rubric measuring retraction notice quality

Accountability in Research, Journal Year: 2024, Volume and Issue: unknown, P. 1 - 12

Published: June 25, 2024

The frequency of scientific retractions has grown substantially in recent years. However, thus far there is no standardized retraction notice format to which journals and their publishers adhere voluntarily, let alone compulsorily. We developed a rubric specifying seven criteria order judge whether notices are easily freely accessible, informative, transparent. mined the Retraction Watch database evaluated total 768 from two (Springer Wiley) over three years (2010, 2015, 2020). Per our rubric, both tended score higher on measures openness/availability, accessibility, clarity as why paper was retracted than they did in: acknowledging institutional investigations; confirming consensus among authors; parts any given warranted retraction. Springer appeared improve time with respect rubric's criteria. observed some discrepancies raters, indicating difficulty developing robust objective for evaluating notices.

Language: Английский

---

A systematic analysis of temporal trends, characteristics, and citations of retracted stem cell publications

BMC Medicine, Journal Year: 2025, Volume and Issue: 23(1)

Published: Feb. 28, 2025

The increasing prevalence of retracted publications in stem cell research presents significant challenges to scientific integrity. Although retraction notices are issued, studies continue be cited, facilitating the dissemination unreliable findings. This study aimed systematically explore characteristics and evaluate impact retractions on subsequent citations. was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search Web Science, Retraction Watch Database, PubMed from their inception through July 25, 2024, identify publications. Characteristics including publication details, reasons, citation counts were extracted. To assess citations, we compared patterns between a random sample papers matched non-retracted controls identical journals issues. Further analysis determine whether citing articles had an elevated risk retraction. Descriptive statistics, chi-squared tests, t-tests, Mann–Kendall tests used for data analysis. systematic identified 1421 records, with 517 meeting inclusion criteria. Temporal revealed two trends: rate that peaked at 0.84% 2023 declining time-to-retraction (median: 30 months, interquartile range: 13–60; Mann–Kendall, tau = − 0.29; P < 0.001). Hospital-affiliated researchers China contributed 244 (47.2%) retractions. Data image flaws 360 (69.6%) Among 472 Science-indexed publications, 366 (77.5%) accumulated 4884 post-retraction 114 (24.2%) receiving more citations than pre-retraction. Analysis subset (n 53) demonstrated only 14 (4.2%) out 334 referenced notice. Compared 639 control showed significantly lower rates (mean rank: 291.32 vs. 351.08; 0.01). Moreover, exhibited 11-fold higher (odds ratio (OR): 11.09; 95% confidence interval (CI): 7.06–17.43). reveals substantial integrity within research. These findings suggest necessity enhanced surveillance mechanisms standardized protocols curtail flawed

Language: Английский

---

Characteristics of Biomedical Retractions in China: an Analysis Using the Retraction Watch Database

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

Published: April 29, 2025

Language: Английский

---

Retracted articles in scientific literature: A bibliometric analysis from 2003 to 2022 using the Web of Science

Heliyon, Journal Year: 2024, Volume and Issue: 10(20), P. e38620 - e38620

Published: Sept. 27, 2024

Language: Английский

---

Analyzing the Drivers Behind Retractions in Tuberculosis Research

Publications, Journal Year: 2025, Volume and Issue: 13(1), P. 4 - 4

Published: Jan. 14, 2025

Tuberculosis research plays a crucial role in understanding and responding to the necessities of people with this disease, yet integrity is compromised by frequent retractions. Identifying analyzing main reasons for retraction tuberculosis articles essential improving practices ensuring reliable scientific output. In study, we conducted an advanced systematic literature review retracted original on Tuberculosis, utilizing databases such as Web Science, Embase, Scopus, PubMed, LILACS, Retraction Watch Database webpage. We found that falsification plagiarism were most retraction, although 16% did not declare drivers behind retraction. Almost half studies received external funding, affecting only those specific but future funding opportunities field. Stronger measures are needed prevent misconduct vulnerable population.

Language: Английский

---

The politicization of retraction

Accountability in Research, Journal Year: 2025, Volume and Issue: unknown, P. 1 - 8

Published: April 28, 2025

The retraction of flawed scientific journal articles is one the most important means by which science "self-corrects." prevailing consensus that appropriate only when reported findings are unreliable due to research misconduct or honest errors, ethical violations have occurred, there legal concerns about article. Recently, however, retractions seem be occurring for political reasons. This trend exemplified recent editorial guidance from Nature and Human Behavior advises works risk significant harm members certain social groups. commentary argues while "political" may in rare cases, typically not best address potentially harmful research. politicization risks general as it further undermine diminishing public trust encourage scientists self-censor their work, leading under-exploration some issues.

Language: Английский

---