Science Editing

Original Articles

Characteristics of retracted articles based on retraction data from online sources through February 2019: Quan-Hoang Vuong, Viet-Phuong La, Manh-Tung Ho, Thu-Trang Vuong, Manh-Toan Ho; Sci Ed. 2020;7(1):34-44. Published online February 20, 2020; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.187

9,269 View
274 Download
19 Web of Science
18 Crossref

Purpose: Although retractions are commonly considered to be negative, the fact remains that they play a positive role in the academic community. For instance, retractions help scientific enterprise perform its self-correcting function and provide lessons for future researchers; furthermore, they represent the fulfillment of social responsibilities, and they enable scientific communities to offer better monitoring services to keep problematic studies in check. This study aims to provide a thorough overview of the practice of retraction in scientific publishing from the first incident to the present.
Methods
We built a database using SQL Server 2016 and homemade artificial intelligence tools to extract and classify data sources including RetractionWatch, official publishers’ archives, and online communities into ready-to-analyze groups and to scan them for new data. After data cleaning, a dataset of 18,603 retractions from 1,753 (when the first retracted paper was published) to February 2019, covering 127 research fields, was established.
Results
Notable retraction events include the rise in retracted articles starting in 1999 and the unusual number of retractions in 2010. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Elsevier, and Springer account for nearly 60% of all retracted papers globally, with Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers contributing the most retractions, even though it is not the organization that publishes the most journals. Finally, reasons for retraction are diverse but the most common is “fake peer review”.
Conclusion
This study suggests that the frequency of retraction has boomed in the past 20 years, and it underscores the importance of understanding and learning from the practice of retracting scientific articles.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Characteristics of retracted research papers before and during the COVID-19 pandemic
Yuki Furuse
Frontiers in Medicine.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Retractions in arts and humanities: an analysis of the retraction notices
Ivan Heibi, Silvio Peroni
Digital Scholarship in the Humanities.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
A comparative study on characteristics of retracted publications across different open access levels
Er-Te Zheng, Hui-Zhen Fu
Journal of Data and Information Science.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Streamlining the self-correction process: a review of the use of replication research by organizational scholars
Przemysław G. Hensel, Agnieszka Kacprzak
Journal of Organizational Change Management.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Research done wrong: A comprehensive investigation of retracted publications in COVID-19
Somipam R. Shimray
Accountability in Research.2023; 30(7): 393. CrossRef
“Research exceptionalism” in the COVID-19 pandemic: an analysis of scientific retractions in Scopus
Priscila Rubbo, Caroline Lievore, Celso Biynkievycz Dos Santos, Claudia Tania Picinin, Luiz Alberto Pilatti, Bruno Pedroso
Ethics & Behavior.2023; 33(5): 339. CrossRef
Biased, wrong and counterfeited evidences published during the COVID-19 pandemic, a systematic review of retracted COVID-19 papers
Angelo Capodici, Aurelia Salussolia, Francesco Sanmarchi, Davide Gori, Davide Golinelli
Quality & Quantity.2023; 57(5): 4881. CrossRef
Are female scientists underrepresented in self-retractions for honest error?
Mariana D. Ribeiro, Jesus Mena-Chalco, Karina de Albuquerque Rocha, Marlise Pedrotti, Patrick Menezes, Sonia M. R. Vasconcelos
Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Causes for Retraction in the Biomedical Literature: A Systematic Review of Studies of Retraction Notices
Soo Young Hwang, Dong Keon Yon, Seung Won Lee, Min Seo Kim, Jong Yeob Kim, Lee Smith, Ai Koyanagi, Marco Solmi, Andre F Carvalho, Eunyoung Kim, Jae Il Shin, John P A Ioannidis
Journal of Korean Medical Science.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
The relationship between methodological quality and the use of retracted publications in evidence syntheses
Caitlin J. Bakker, Nicole Theis-Mahon, Sarah Jane Brown, Maurice P. Zeegers
Systematic Reviews.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Retractions covered by retraction watch from 2017 to 2022: a perspective from Indian researchers
Somipam R. Shimray, Sakshi Tiwari, Chennupati Kodand Ramaiah
Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Non‐author entities accountable for retractions: A diachronic and cross‐disciplinary exploration of reasons for retraction
Shaoxiong (Brian) Xu, Guangwei Hu
Learned Publishing.2022; 35(2): 261. CrossRef
Correction of the Scientific Production: Publisher Performance Evaluation Using a Dataset of 4844 PubMed Retractions
Catalin Toma, Liliana Padureanu, Bogdan Toma
Publications.2022; 10(2): 18. CrossRef
Can tweets be used to detect problems early with scientific papers? A case study of three retracted COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 papers
Robin Haunschild, Lutz Bornmann
Scientometrics.2021; 126(6): 5181. CrossRef
Research ethics: a profile of retractions from world class universities
Caroline Lievore, Priscila Rubbo, Celso Biynkievycz dos Santos, Claudia Tânia Picinin, Luiz Alberto Pilatti
Scientometrics.2021; 126(8): 6871. CrossRef
Retractions, Fake Peer Reviews, and Paper Mills
Horacio Rivera, Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
Journal of Korean Medical Science.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
A cross-disciplinary and severity-based study of author-related reasons for retraction
Shaoxiong (Brian) Xu, Guangwei Hu
Accountability in Research.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
Comprehensive Analysis of Retracted Publications in Dentistry: A 23-Year Review
Shannon Samuel, Joe Mathew Cherian, Abi M. Thomas, Stefano Corbella
International Journal of Dentistry.2020; 2020: 1. CrossRef

Authors’ perspectives on academic publishing: initial observations from a large-scale global survey: Basil D’Souza, Sneha Kulkarni, Clarinda Cerejo; Sci Ed. 2018;5(1):39-43. Published online February 19, 2018; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.116

12,667 View
244 Download
12 Web of Science
7 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Authors are at the heart of academic publishing, but their voices are underrepresented in discussions about improving the academic publishing system. To understand the viewpoints of authors on various aspects of academic publishing and the challenges they face, we developed a large-scale survey entitled “Author perspectives on the academic publishing process” and made it available in December 2016. The survey has received 8,795 responses; this paper is based on the interim results drawn from 5,293 survey responses, and presents some interesting and thought-provoking trends that were observed in the authors’ responses, such as their interpretation of plagiarism and decisive factors in journal selection, as well as their thoughts on what needs to change in the publishing system for it to be more author-friendly. Some of the most important findings of the survey were: (1) the majority of the authors found manuscript preparation to be the most challenging task in the publication process, (2) the impact factor of a journal was reported to be the most important consideration for journal selection, (3) most authors found journal guidelines to be incomplete, (4) major gaps existed in author-journal communication, and (5) although awareness of ethics was high, awareness of good publication practice standards was low. Moreover, more than half of the participants indicated that among areas for improvement in the publishing system, they would like to see changes in the time it takes to publish a paper, the peer review process, and the fairness and objectivity of the publication process. These findings indicate the necessity of making the journal publication process more author-centered and smoothing the way for authors to get published.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Factors affecting authors' manuscript submission behaviour: A systematic review
Xiaoting Xu, Juan Xie, Jianjun Sun, Ying Cheng
Learned Publishing.2023; 36(2): 285. CrossRef
Authors' choice between parent and mirror journals of Elsevier
Sumiko Asai
Learned Publishing.2023; 36(2): 299. CrossRef
Video or perish? An analysis of video abstract author guidelines
Jianxin Liu
Journal of Librarianship and Information Science.2022; 54(2): 230. CrossRef
Why consistent, clear, and uniform instructions for authors are required
Jean Iwaz
Science Editing.2022; 9(2): 142. CrossRef
Characteristics of high research performance authors in the field of library and information science and those of their articles
Yu-Wei Chang
Scientometrics.2021; 126(4): 3373. CrossRef
Impact of a new institutional medical journal on professional identity development and academic cultural change: A qualitative study
Victoria Hayes, Emma Williams, Kathleen M. Fairfield, Carolyne Falank, Dina McKelvy, Robert Bing‐You
Learned Publishing.2021; 34(4): 602. CrossRef
Are articles in library and information science (LIS) journals primarily contributed to by LIS authors?
Yu-Wei Chang
Scientometrics.2019; 121(1): 81. CrossRef

Case Study

Analysis of the results of the first implementation of the Korea Manuscript Editors Certification: Hyun Jung Yi, Jae Hwa Chang, Yoon Joo Seo; Sci Ed. 2017;4(1):34-38. Published online February 20, 2017; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.87

9,349 View
156 Download
4 Web of Science
5 Crossref

Abstract PDF

In the field of international scholarly journal publishing, manuscript editing has been established as an essential component of the publication process. As the necessity of this process has increased, the Korean Council of Science Editors has consistently provided education for training professional manuscript editors, and has worked to implement a manuscript editor certification system. Starting in 2014, the Korean Council of Science Editors thoroughly conducted background research and advanced analysis in preparation for such a system. Subsequently, a committee of experts was formed to develop and simulate an examination for this certification. This process culminated in the first manuscript editor certification examination, which was held in November 2016 and resulted in 40 initial Korea Manuscript Editors Certification holders. Examinations for the Korea Manuscript Editors Certification are scheduled to be held annually. The establishment of this certification system will contribute to strengthening individual capacities and further developing science journal publication in Korea by expanding the field of manuscript editing. Ultimately, this system will contribute to the promotion of Korean scientific journals to the level of prominent international journals.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Presidential address: How to cope with the present environment of scholarly journal publishing
Sun Huh
Science Editing.2020; 7(1): 1. CrossRef
Search engines and software for manuscript editing
Yeonwook Kim
Science Editing.2020; 7(1): 88. CrossRef
Recent advances of medical journals in Korea and and further development strategies: Is it possible for them to publish Nobel Prize-winning research?
Sun Huh
Journal of the Korean Medical Association.2018; 61(9): 524. CrossRef
Reflections on the Basic Manuscript Editors’ Training 2017
Hakbong Lee
Science Editing.2017; 4(2): 93. CrossRef
How to successfully list a journal in the Social Science Citation Index or Science Citation Index Expanded
Sun Huh
Korean Journal of Medical Education.2017; 29(4): 221. CrossRef

First
Prev
Page of 1
Next
Last

Search