1
|
Candal-Pedreira C, Ruano-Ravina A. Ensuring research integrity in clinical trials. Semergen 2025; 51:102370. [PMID: 39571289 DOI: 10.1016/j.semerg.2024.102370] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/08/2024] [Accepted: 10/10/2024] [Indexed: 03/15/2025]
Affiliation(s)
- C Candal-Pedreira
- Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain; Consortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública-CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain; Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela (Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago de Compostela-IDIS), Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain
| | - A Ruano-Ravina
- Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain; Consortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública-CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain; Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela (Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago de Compostela-IDIS), Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Sebo P, Sebo M. Assessing database accuracy for article retractions: A preliminary study comparing Retraction Watch Database, PubMed, and Web of Science. Account Res 2025:1-18. [PMID: 39973475 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2025.2465621] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/07/2024] [Accepted: 02/07/2025] [Indexed: 02/21/2025]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This study aimed to compare the accuracy of metadata for retracted articles in Retraction Watch Database (RWD), PubMed, and Web of Science (WoS). METHODS Twenty general internal medicine journals with an impact factor > 2 were randomly selected. RWD, PubMed, and WoS were used to retrieve all retracted articles published in these journals. Eight metadata variables were examined: journal, title, type of article, author(s), country/countries of affiliation, year of publication, year of retraction, and reason(s) for retraction (assessed only for RWD, as this information was unavailable in PubMed and WoS). Descriptive analyses were conducted to document errors across databases. RESULTS Thirty-five retractions were identified, and 280 metadata entries (35 × 8) were analyzed. RWD contained the most metadata errors, affecting 16 articles and 20 metadata entries, including seven errors in year of publication, six in article type, six in author names (five misspellings, one missing two authors), and one in country of affiliation. WoS had one error (a missing author), and PubMed had none. CONCLUSION The relatively high error rate in RWD suggests that researchers should cross-check metadata across multiple databases. Given the preliminary nature of this study, larger-scale research is needed to confirm these findings and improve metadata reliability in retraction databases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul Sebo
- University Institute for Primary Care (IuMFE), University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Melissa Sebo
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Sebo P, Sebo M. Geographical Disparities in Research Misconduct: Analyzing Retraction Patterns by Country. J Med Internet Res 2025; 27:e65775. [PMID: 39808480 PMCID: PMC11775486 DOI: 10.2196/65775] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/25/2024] [Revised: 10/13/2024] [Accepted: 11/12/2024] [Indexed: 01/16/2025] Open
Abstract
This study examines disparities in research retractions due to misconduct, identifying countries with the highest retraction counts and those disproportionately represented relative to population and publication output. The findings emphasize the need for improved research integrity measures.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul Sebo
- University Institute for Primary Care, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Melissa Sebo
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Teixeira da Silva JA, Türp JC, Daly T. Sting operations in biomedical publishing violate truthfulness and undermine trust in research. Curr Med Res Opin 2025; 41:155-162. [PMID: 39668777 DOI: 10.1080/03007995.2024.2441340] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/17/2024] [Revised: 12/02/2024] [Accepted: 12/09/2024] [Indexed: 12/14/2024]
Abstract
Biomedical research cannot function without the trust of peers and society. The truthfulness of claims made by knowledge-producing agents, such as authors of research, is a prerequisite for their trustworthiness, and violations of truthfulness are rightly seen as a threat to the existence and validity of such research. While most reflection on the lack of truthfulness has focused on fake research, little attention has been paid to how sting operations and hoaxes arguably pose an equally great risk to the ethical integrity of publishing. This paper posits that sting operations, like fake research, are examples of breaches of truthfulness. We also argue that for both fake research, as well as stings and hoaxes, the lack of respect for the ethical criterion of truthfulness makes those researchers who engage in them untrustworthy. Sting operations are akin to fighting fire with fire, further undermining trust in biomedical research. From a deontological perspective, we also argue that the reliance on anonymity in sting operations makes them just as bad, if not worse, than fake research. We advocate for critical scholarship as an alternative to hoaxes and sting operations to expose fake research, in order to promote truthfulness rather than violate it. Finally, we argue that journalists reporting on sting operations should insist less on their entertainment and sensationalist value, and focus more on their unethical nature.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Jens C Türp
- Department of Oral Health & Medicine, University Center for Dental Medicine Basel UZB, University of Basel, Switzerland
| | - Timothy Daly
- Bioethics Program, FLACSO Argentina, Buenos Aires, Argentina
- UMR 1219, Bordeaux Population Health, University of Bordeaux & INSERM, Bordeaux, France
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Sebo P. Chinese authors are overrepresented in medical articles retracted for fake peer review or paper mill. Intern Emerg Med 2024; 19:2369-2371. [PMID: 38684644 DOI: 10.1007/s11739-024-03616-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/13/2024] [Accepted: 04/11/2024] [Indexed: 05/02/2024]
Affiliation(s)
- Paul Sebo
- University Institute for Primary Care (IuMFE), University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Kocyigit BF, Akyol A, Zhaksylyk A, Seiil B, Yessirkepov M. Analysis of Retracted Publications in Medical Literature Due to Ethical Violations. J Korean Med Sci 2023; 38:e324. [PMID: 37846787 PMCID: PMC10578991 DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2023.38.e324] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/12/2023] [Accepted: 06/13/2023] [Indexed: 10/18/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Retraction is an essential procedure for correcting scientific literature and informing readers about articles containing significant errors or omissions. Ethical violations are one of the significant triggers of the retraction process. The objective of this study was to evaluate the characteristics of retracted articles in the medical literature due to ethical violations. METHODS The Retraction Watch Database was utilized for this descriptive study. The 'ethical violations' and 'medicine' options were chosen. The date range was 2010 to 2023. The collected data included the number of authors, the date of publication and retraction, the journal of publication, the indexing status of the journal, the country of the corresponding author, the subject area of the article, and the particular retraction reasons. RESULTS A total of 177 articles were analyzed. The most retractions were detected in 2019 (n = 29) and 2012 (n = 28). The median time period between the articles' first publication date and the date of retraction was 647 (0-4,295) days. The leading countries were China (n = 47), USA (n = 25), South Korea (n = 23), Iran (n = 14), and India (n = 12). The main causes of retraction were ethical approval issues (n = 65), data-related concerns (n = 51), informed consent issues (n = 45), and fake-biased peer review (n = 30). CONCLUSION Unethical behavior is one of the most significant obstacles to scientific advancement. Obtaining appropriate ethics committee approvals and informed consent forms is crucial in ensuring the ethical conduct of medical research. It is the responsibility of journal editors to ensure that raw data is controlled and peer review processes are conducted effectively. It is essential to educate young researchers on unethical practices and the negative outcomes that may result from them.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Burhan Fatih Kocyigit
- Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam University, Kahramanmaraş, Türkiye.
| | - Ahmet Akyol
- Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Application and Research Center, Hasan Kalyoncu University, Gaziantep, Türkiye
| | - Alikhan Zhaksylyk
- Department of Scientific and Clinical Work, Doctoral and Master's Studies, South Kazakhstan Medical Academy, Shymkent, Kazakhstan
| | - Birzhan Seiil
- Department of Biology and Biochemistry, South Kazakhstan Medical Academy, Shymkent, Kazakhstan
| | - Marlen Yessirkepov
- Department of Biology and Biochemistry, South Kazakhstan Medical Academy, Shymkent, Kazakhstan
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Candal-Pedreira C, Rey-Brandariz J, Varela-Lema L, Pérez-Ríos M, Ruano-Ravina A. Challenges in peer review: how to guarantee the quality and transparency of the editorial process in scientific journals. An Pediatr (Barc) 2023:S2341-2879(23)00133-3. [PMID: 37349245 DOI: 10.1016/j.anpede.2023.05.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/22/2023] [Accepted: 05/31/2023] [Indexed: 06/24/2023] Open
Abstract
The editorial process of scientific journals is complex but essential for the dissemination of scientific knowledge. The quality of the process depends on the authors, editors and reviewers, who must have the necessary experience and knowledge to ensure the quality of the published articles. One of the most significant challenges scientific journals face today is the peer review of manuscripts. Editors are responsible for coordinating and overseeing the entire editorial process, from manuscript submission to final publication, and ensuring that articles meet ethical and scientific integrity standards. Editors are also in charge of selecting appropriate reviewers. However, the latter is becoming difficult due to the increasing refusal of expert reviewers to participate in the editorial process. The reasons for it are diverse, but the lack of recognition for review work and reviewer fatigue in the most sought-after reviewers are among the most important. Some of the measures that could be taken to alleviate the problem concern the possibility of professionalizing peer review.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cristina Candal-Pedreira
- Área de Medicina Preventiva y Salud Pública, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain; Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago de Compostela (IDIS), Santiago de Compostela, Spain
| | - Julia Rey-Brandariz
- Área de Medicina Preventiva y Salud Pública, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
| | - Leonor Varela-Lema
- Área de Medicina Preventiva y Salud Pública, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain; Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago de Compostela (IDIS), Santiago de Compostela, Spain; CIBER en Epidemiología y Salud Pública, Madrid, Spain
| | - Mónica Pérez-Ríos
- Área de Medicina Preventiva y Salud Pública, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain; Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago de Compostela (IDIS), Santiago de Compostela, Spain; CIBER en Epidemiología y Salud Pública, Madrid, Spain
| | - Alberto Ruano-Ravina
- Área de Medicina Preventiva y Salud Pública, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Wang P. Rising of Retracted Research Works and Challenges in Information Systems: Need New Features for Information Retrieval and Interactions. PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2023 CONFERENCE ON HUMAN INFORMATION INTERACTION AND RETRIEVAL 2023:69-82. [DOI: 10.1145/3576840.3578281] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/04/2025]
Affiliation(s)
- Peiling Wang
- School of Information Sciences, The University of Tennessee Knoxville, USA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Teixeira da Silva JA, Moradzadeh M, Yamada Y, Dunleavy DJ, Tsigaris P. Cabells' Predatory Reports criteria: Assessment and proposed revisions. JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC LIBRARIANSHIP 2023. [DOI: 10.1016/j.acalib.2022.102659] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/09/2023]
|
10
|
Teixeira da Silva JA. DYSTOPIAN CASES OF ORCID IDENTIFIERS: ANIMAL-ASSOCIATED ACCOUNTS. CENTRAL ASIAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL HYPOTHESES AND ETHICS 2022. [DOI: 10.47316/cajmhe.2022.3.4.06] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/16/2023] Open
Abstract
DYSTOPIAN CASES OF ORCID IDENTIFIERS: ANIMAL-ASSOCIATED ACCOUNTS
Collapse
|
11
|
Authorship Issues Threatening the Credibility of Biomedical Science. Indian J Surg 2022. [DOI: 10.1007/s12262-022-03628-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/05/2022] Open
|
12
|
Candal-Pedreira C, Ross JS, Ruano-Ravina A, Egilman DS, Fernández E, Pérez-Ríos M. Retracted papers originating from paper mills: cross sectional study. BMJ 2022; 379:e071517. [PMID: 36442874 PMCID: PMC9703783 DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2022-071517] [Citation(s) in RCA: 44] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 07/11/2022] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To describe retracted papers originating from paper mills, including their characteristics, visibility, and impact over time, and the journals in which they were published. DESIGN Cross sectional study. SETTING The Retraction Watch database was used for identification of retracted papers from paper mills, Web of Science was used for the total number of published papers, and data from Journal Citation Reports were collected to show characteristics of journals. PARTICIPANTS All paper mill papers retracted from 1 January 2004 to 26 June 2022 were included in the study. Papers bearing an expression of concern were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Descriptive statistics were used to characterise the sample and analyse the trend of retracted paper mill papers over time, and to analyse their impact and visibility by reference to the number of citations received. RESULTS 1182 retracted paper mill papers were identified. The publication of the first paper mill paper was in 2004 and the first retraction was in 2016; by 2021, paper mill retractions accounted for 772 (21.8%) of the 3544 total retractions. Overall, retracted paper mill papers were mostly published in journals of the second highest Journal Citation Reports quartile for impact factor (n=529 (44.8%)) and listed four to six authors (n=602 (50.9%)). Of the 1182 papers, almost all listed authors of 1143 (96.8%) paper mill retractions came from Chinese institutions and 909 (76.9%) listed a hospital as a primary affiliation. 15 journals accounted for 812 (68.7%) of 1182 paper mill retractions, with one journal accounting for 166 (14.0%). Nearly all (n=1083, 93.8%) paper mill retractions had received at least one citation since publication, with a median of 11 (interquartile range 5-22) citations received. CONCLUSIONS Papers retracted originating from paper mills are increasing in frequency, posing a problem for the research community. Retracted paper mill papers most commonly originated from China and were published in a small number of journals. Nevertheless, detected paper mill papers might be substantially different from those that are not detected. New mechanisms are needed to identify and avoid this relatively new type of misconduct.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cristina Candal-Pedreira
- Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain
- Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela (Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago de Compostela-IDIS), Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain
| | - Joseph S Ross
- Section of General Internal Medicine and National Clinician Scholars Program, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Yale University School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA
- Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, CT, USA
| | - Alberto Ruano-Ravina
- Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain
- Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela (Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago de Compostela-IDIS), Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain
- Consortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBER en Epidemiología y Salud Pública-CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain
| | - David S Egilman
- Family Medicine Department, Alpert School of Medicine, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA
| | - Esteve Fernández
- Tobacco Control Unit, WHO Collaborating Centre for Tobacco Control, Institut Català d'Oncologia-ICO, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Catalonia, Spain
- Consortium for Biomedical Research in Respitarory Diseases (CIBER en Enfermedades Respiratorias-CIBERES), Madrid, Spain
| | - Mónica Pérez-Ríos
- Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain
- Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela (Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago de Compostela-IDIS), Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain
- Consortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBER en Epidemiología y Salud Pública-CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Teixeira da Silva JA. Junk Science, Junk Journals, and Junk Publishing Management: Risk to Science's Credibility. PHILOSOPHIA (RAMAT-GAN, ISRAEL) 2022; 51:1-4. [PMID: 36467392 PMCID: PMC9684982 DOI: 10.1007/s11406-022-00590-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/03/2022] [Revised: 10/12/2022] [Accepted: 10/18/2022] [Indexed: 06/17/2023]
|
14
|
Santos-d’Amorim K, Wang T, Lund B, Macedo Dos Santos RN. From plagiarism to scientific paper mills: a profile of retracted articles within the SciELO Brazil collection. ETHICS & BEHAVIOR 2022. [DOI: 10.1080/10508422.2022.2141747] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Karen Santos-d’Amorim
- Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciência da Informação, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE)
| | - Ting Wang
- School of Library and Information Management, Emporia State University
| | - Brady Lund
- College of Information, Department of Information Science, University of North Texas
| | | |
Collapse
|
15
|
Abstract
Publons was a peer reviewer rewards platform that aimed to recognize the contribution that academics made during peer review to a journal. For about 10 years of its existence, Publons became the most popular service among peer reviewers. Having gained traction and popularity, Publons was purchased in 2017 by Clarivate Analytics (now Clarivate), and many academics, journals and publishers invested time and effort to participate in Publons. Using Publons, various peer review-related experiments or pilot programs were initiated by some academic publishers regarding the introduction of open peer review into their journals’ editorial processes. In this paper, we examine pertinent literature related to Publons, and reflect on its benefits and flaws during its short-lived history. In mid-August 2022, Clarivate fused Publons into the Web of Science platform. Publons, as a brand peer review service, has now ceased to exist but some of the functionality remains in Web of Science while other aspects that used to be open and free at Publons are now paid-for services. We reflect on the effect of such experiments, which initially had bold and ambitious academic objectives to fortify peer review, on academics’ trust, especially when such projects become commercialized.
Collapse
|
16
|
Day A. Exploratory analysis of text duplication in peer-review reveals peer-review fraud and paper mills. Scientometrics 2022. [DOI: 10.1007/s11192-022-04504-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
|
17
|
Teixeira da Silva JA. Photographs for authors should not be a mandatory journal submission requirement. Ir J Med Sci 2022; 192:965-966. [PMID: 35665896 DOI: 10.1007/s11845-022-03045-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/24/2022] [Accepted: 06/01/2022] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
|
18
|
Teixeira da Silva JA. A Synthesis of the Formats for Correcting Erroneous and Fraudulent Academic Literature, and Associated Challenges. JOURNAL FOR GENERAL PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE = ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ALLGEMEINE WISSENSCHAFTSTHEORIE 2022; 53:583-599. [PMID: 35669840 PMCID: PMC9159037 DOI: 10.1007/s10838-022-09607-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/02/2021] [Revised: 11/14/2021] [Accepted: 02/12/2022] [Indexed: 06/15/2023]
Abstract
Academic publishing is undergoing a highly transformative process, and many established rules and value systems that are in place, such as traditional peer review (TPR) and preprints, are facing unprecedented challenges, including as a result of post-publication peer review. The integrity and validity of the academic literature continue to rely naively on blind trust, while TPR and preprints continue to fail to effectively screen out errors, fraud, and misconduct. Imperfect TPR invariably results in imperfect papers that have passed through varying levels of rigor of screening and validation. If errors or misconduct were not detected during TPR's editorial screening, but are detected at the post-publication stage, an opportunity is created to correct the academic record. Currently, the most common forms of correcting the academic literature are errata, corrigenda, expressions of concern, and retractions or withdrawals. Some additional measures to correct the literature have emerged, including manuscript versioning, amendments, partial retractions and retract and replace. Preprints can also be corrected if their version is updated. This paper discusses the risks, benefits and limitations of these forms of correcting the academic literature. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10838-022-09607-4.
Collapse
|
19
|
Nazarovets S. Analysis of publications by authors of Ukrainian institutes in Scopus‐delisted titles. LEARNED PUBLISHING 2022. [DOI: 10.1002/leap.1464] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
|
20
|
Tumor Biology's struggle to survive: A tough lesson for cancer and oncology research journals. FORUM OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY 2022. [DOI: 10.2478/fco-2022-0001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Abstract
Tumor Biology, owned by the International Society of Oncology and BioMarkers and currently published by IOS Press, lost its Clarivate impact factor of 3.650 in 2017. It has been plagued by over 100 retractions due to paper mills (including a batch of 15 papers published between 2014 and 2016 that were retracted at the end of 2021), faked peer reviews, and forged research. According to PubMed, the number of papers published by Tumor Biology has been reduced to a mere trickle, dropping from 707 in 2017 to 66 in 2018. It is unclear how Tumor Biology will be able to recover from such disastrous reputational damage and whether there is even merit in continuing its publication. Other journals for cancer and oncology research would do well to observe this case closely and learn from its mistakes.
Collapse
|
21
|
Are Mandatory Institutional Emails for Manuscript Submission an Unfair and Discriminatory Policy? JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY MEDICINE 2022. [DOI: 10.2478/jim-2021-0039] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Abstract
With increasing cases of fraud in submission, peer review, and publication processes, some by authors with fake identities and who use concocted emails, including the use of web-based emails, editors and publishers are looking for ways to try and stem the tide of fraud. In some journals, editors and publishers mistakenly believe that this might be possible by implementing a policy that mandates submitting authors to have an institutional email. However, this may be discriminatory at various levels, the most obvious of which is unfairness, i.e., no right to “entry” to a journal based exclusively on the type of email used, even more so when the submitting author is not fake. Such policies might, very ironically, even violate stated journal or publisher policies on discrimination and inclusivity. Editors and publishers that employ such tactics, as a way to attempt to reduce fraudulent submissions, need to rethink this potentially discriminatory strategy. In a publishing world that is becoming increasingly litigious, it would not be surprising if legal action would one day be taken against a journal or publisher by a valid author using a web-based email such as @gmail.com, @yahoo.com, or @163.com, but who may have been unfairly barred entry to that journal based on such a policy. Two real case examples are provided, Tumor Biology, a struggling journal published by IOS Press, and Journal of Business Ethics, a journal published by Springer Nature.
Collapse
|
22
|
|
23
|
Teixeira da Silva JA. Issues and challenges to reproducibility of cancer research: a commentary. Future Oncol 2022; 18:1417-1422. [DOI: 10.2217/fon-2021-1378] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
|
24
|
da Silva JAT. Reflections on the disappearance of Dolos list, a now-defunct “predatory” publishing blacklist. OPEN INFORMATION SCIENCE 2022. [DOI: 10.1515/opis-2022-0136] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Abstract
After the closure of Jeffrey Beall’s open access “predatory” publishing blacklists in mid-January of 2017, a new “predatory publishing” blacklist emerged in 2018, Dolos list. This blacklist, curated by “Professor Alexandre Georges”, became defunct sometime in late 2020 or early 2021 based on publicly available clues. In this paper, several aspects of this blacklist, as retrieved from the Internet Archive and ResearchGate, were examined, including the profile of “Alexandre Georges”. The veracity of this individual’s identity is questioned. Discussion is provided about the citation, use and promotion of Dolos list in the literature and on websites as a solution and/or resource pertaining to “predatory” publishing. Given the questionable nature of the now-defunct Dolos blacklist website, and the uncertainty regarding the veracity of its curator’s identity, the author holds the opinion that sites that continue to promote the Dolos list may also be spreading inaccurate information (i.e., misinformation) to academics.
Collapse
|
25
|
Thabah M, Currie G. Uniform manuscript submission formats: The need and challenges. INDIAN JOURNAL OF RHEUMATOLOGY 2022. [DOI: 10.4103/0973-3698.364679] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
|
26
|
Teixeira da Silva JA, Moradzadeh M, Adjei KOK, Owusu-Ansah CM, Balehegn M, Faúndez EI, Janodia MD, Al-Khatib A. An integrated paradigm shift to deal with ‘predatory publishing’. JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC LIBRARIANSHIP 2022. [DOI: 10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102481] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
|