Analysis of the retraction papers in oncology field from Chinese scholars from 2013 to 2022.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the characteristics of retracted oncology papers from Chinese scholars and the reasons for retraction. METHODS: Data on retracted oncology papers from Chinese scholars published from 2013 to 2022 were retrieved from the Retraction Watch database. The retraction number and annual distribution, article types, reasons for retraction, retraction time delay, publishers, and journal characteristics of the retracted papers were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 2695 oncology papers from Chinese scholars published from 2013 to 2022 had been retracted. The majority of these papers were published from 2017 to 2020. In terms of article type, 2538 of the retracted papers were research articles, accounting for 94.17% of the total number of retracted papers. The main reasons for retraction were data, result, and image problems, duplicate publication, paper mills, author- and third-party-related reasons, plagiarism, false reviews, and method errors. The retraction time delay for the retracted papers ranged from 0 to 3582 days (median, 826 days). The retractions mainly occurred within the first 4 years after publication. A total of 77 publishers were involved in the retracted papers. In terms of journal distribution, 394 journals were involved in the retracted papers, of which 368 (93.40%) were included in the SCI database. There were 243 journals with an impact factor of <5 (66.03%). CONCLUSION: In the field of oncology, the annual distribution of retracted papers from Chinese scholars exhibited first an increasing and subsequently a decreasing trend, reaching a peak in 2019, indicating an improvement in the status of retraction after 2021. The main type of the retracted papers was research article, and the main reason for retraction was academic misconduct. The retractions were mainly concentrated in several major publishers and periodicals in Europe and the United States. Most of the journals had low-impact factors.

Ambiguity in Ethical Standards: Global Versus Local Science in Explaining Academic Plagiarism.

The past decade has seen extensive research carried out on the systematic causes of research misconduct. Simultaneously, less attention has been paid to the variation in academic misconduct between research fields, as most empirical studies focus on one particular discipline. We propose that academic discipline is one of several systematic factors that might contribute to academic misbehavior. Drawing on a neo-institutional approach, we argue that in the developing countries, the norm of textual originality has not drawn equal support across different research fields depending on its level of internationalization. Using plagiarism detection software, we analyzed 2,405 doctoral dissertations randomly selected from all dissertations defended in Russia between 2007 and 2015. We measured the globalization of each academic discipline by calculating the share of publications indexed in the global citation database in relation to overall output. Our results showed that, with an average share of detected borrowings of over 19%, the incidence of plagiarism in Russia is remarkably higher than in Western countries. Overall, disciplines closely follow the pattern of higher globalization associated with a lower percentage of borrowed text. We also found that plagiarism is less prevalent at research-oriented institutions supporting global ethical standards. Our findings suggest that it might be misleading to measure the prevalence of academic misconduct in developing countries without paying attention to variations at the disciplinary level.

Evaluation of Turkish Academic and Student Attitudes on Plagiarism: Validity and Reliability of the Plagiarism Attitudes Scale.

The main purpose of this study was to translate the Plagiarism Attitude Scale into Turkish and validate it for use in Turkish settings, in order to better understand research integrity attitudes and awareness of the Turkish academic and student community, while also contributing an instrument for research in this area. The research was designed and conducted with 483 participants. In the process of adapting the scale to Turkish, language, content, and construct validity analyses were performed. Following the completion of the validity phase, the reliability of the scale was examined using Cronbach's alpha coefficient and the split-half method. The results indicate that the scale's language and content validity are deemed sufficient. According to the findings of the research, the Plagiarism Attitude Scale, in its adapted Turkish version, is considered a valid and reliable tool. The use of this Turkish scale will assist local researchers in sharing their unique perspectives and help the international community better understand research ethics concerns in Türkiye. Additionally, this scale will serve as a valuable resource for planning educational programs.

Investigate the relationship between the retraction reasons and the quality of methodology in non-Cochrane retracted systematic reviews: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review aimed to investigate the relationship between retraction status and the methodology quality in the retracted non-Cochrane systematic review. METHOD: PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched with keywords including systematic review, meta-analysis, and retraction or retracted as a type of publication until September 2023. There were no time or language restrictions. Non-Cochrane medical systematic review studies that were retracted were included in the present study. The data related to the retraction status of the articles were extracted from the retraction notice and Retraction Watch, and the quality of the methodology was evaluated with the AMSTAR-2 checklist by two independent researchers. Data were analyzed in the Excel 2019 and SPSS 21 software. RESULT: Of the 282 systematic reviews, the corresponding authors of 208 (73.75%) articles were from China. The average interval between publish and retraction of the article was about 23 months and about half of the non-Cochrane systematic reviews were retracted in the last 4 years. The most common reasons for retractions were fake peer reviews and unreliable data, respectively. Editors and publishers were the most retractors or requestors for retractions. More than 86% of the retracted non-Cochrane SRs were published in journals with an impact factor above two and had a critically low quality. Items 7, 9, and 13 among the critical items of the AMSTAR-2 checklist received the lowest scores. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: There was a significant relationship between the reasons of retraction and the quality of the methodology (P-value < 0.05). Plagiarism software and using the Cope guidelines may decrease the time of retraction. In some countries, strict rules for promoting researchers increase the risk of misconduct. To avoid scientific errors and improve the quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs), it is better to create protocol registration and retraction guidelines in each journal for SRs/MAs.

Retracted publications in autism research are mostly concerned with ethical misconduct.

BACKGROUND: As the prevalence of autism appears to increase, more research to guide effective diagnosis and intervention practices is needed. Findings disseminated through peer-reviewed publications are critical, but the number of retractions continues to rise. An understanding of retracted publications is imperative to ensure the body of evidence is corrected and current. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this analysis were to summarize key characteristics of retracted publications in autism research, examine the length of time between publication and retraction, and assess the extent journals are adhering to publishing ethical guidelines for reporting retracted articles. METHODS: We searched five databases through 2021 (PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Retraction Watch). RESULTS: A total of 25 retracted articles were included in the analysis. Ethical misconduct accounted for the majority of retractions rather than scientific error. The shortest time to retraction was 2 months and the longest length was 144 months. DISCUSSION: The time lag between publication and retraction since 2018 has improved considerably. Nineteen of the articles had retraction notices (76%), whereas six articles did not have a notice (24%). CONCLUSION: These findings summarize errors of previous retractions and illuminate opportunities for researchers, journal publishers and librarians to learn from retracted publications.

An examination of retracted articles in nursing literature.

INTRODUCTION: The output of scholarly publications in scientific literature has increased exponentially in recent years. This increase in literature has been accompanied by an increase in retractions. Although some of these may be attributed to publishing errors, many are the result of unsavory research practices. The purposes of this study were to identify the number of retracted articles in nursing and reasons for the retractions, analyze the retraction notices, and determine the length of time for an article in nursing to be retracted. DESIGN: This was an exploratory study. METHODS: A search of PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Retraction Watch databases was conducted to identify retracted articles in nursing and their retraction notices. RESULTS: Between 1997 and 2022, 123 articles published in the nursing literature were retracted. Ten different reasons for retraction were used to categorize these articles with one-third of the retractions (n = 37, 30.1%) not specifying a reason. Sixty-eight percent (n = 77) were retracted because of an actual or a potential ethical concern: duplicate publication, data issues, plagiarism, authorship issues, and copyright. CONCLUSION: Nurses rely on nursing-specific scholarly literature as evidence for clinical decisions. The findings demonstrated that retractions are increasing within published nursing literature. In addition, it was evident that retraction notices do not prevent previously published work from being cited. This study addressed a gap in knowledge about article retractions specific to nursing.

A model of the interrelationship between research ethics and research integrity.

Purpose: The purpose of this article is to explore the interrelationship between research ethics and research integrity with a focus on the primary forms of research misconduct, including plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification. It also details the main factors for their occurrence, and the possible ways for mitigating their use among scholars.Methods: The method employed a detailed examination of the main ethical dilemmas, as delineated in literature, as well as the factors leading to these ethical breaches and the strategies to mitigate them. Further, the teaching experiences of the primary author are reflected in the development of the model.Results: The results of this article are represented in a model illustrating the interrelationship between research ethics and research integrity. Further, a significant aspect of our article is the identification of novel forms of research misconduct concerning the use of irrelevant or forced citations or references.Conclusion: In conclusion, the article highlights the substantial positive effects that adherence to research ethics and integrity have on the academic well-being of scholars.

[Scientific integrity faces plagiarism fabricated with the ChatGPT]. / La integridad científica ante los plagios fabricados con el ChatGPT.

Among the malpractices that undermine research integrity, plagiarism is a major threat given its frequency and evolving presentations. Plagiarism implies the intentional grabbing of texts, ideas, images, or data belonging to others and without crediting them. However, the different and even masked forms of plagiarism often difficult a clear identification. Currently, the many kinds of fraud and plagiarism account for most retractions in traditional and open access journals. Further, the rate of retracted articles is higher in the Latin American databases LILACS and Scielo than in PubMed and Web of Science. This difference has been related to the typical laxity of our culture and the lack of English writing skills of non-Anglophone researchers. These features explain the conflict experienced by Latin American students in USA where they face a stricter culture regarding academic and scientific plagiarism. In the internet era, the ease of accessing scientific literature has increased the temptation to plagiarize but this ethical breach has been countered by antiplagiarism software. Now, the so-called "paraphragiarism" prompted by paraphrasing tools exceeds the infamous "copy-paste". For instance, the innovative ChatGPT can be used for plagiarizing and paraphragiarizing. Moreover, its inclusion as coauthor in scientific papers has been banned by prestigious journals and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors because such chatbot cannot meet the required public responsibility criterium. To avoid plagiarism, it is enough to always give due credit in the proper way. Lastly, I question the ill-fated and now prevailing conjunction of blind faith in progress and zero skepticism that prevents us from foreseeing the negative consequences of technological advances.

De entre las malas prácticas que socavan la integridad científica destaca el plagio, tanto por su frecuencia como por sus cada vez más evolucionadas presentaciones. Plagiar implica apropiarse intencionalmente de textos, ideas, imágenes o datos ajenos sin dar el crédito debido. Sin embargo, las muchas y, a veces, sutiles maneras de plagiar dificultan identificar esta práctica deshonesta. Los fraudes y plagios explican la mayoría de los artículos retractados en revistas tradicionales y en las de acceso abierto. Además, las retractaciones por plagios en las bases de datos LILACS y SciELO exceden las reportadas en PubMed y Web of Science. Dicha diferencia se atribuye a la permisividad propia de nuestra cultura y a la dificultad para escribir en inglés que los académicos no angloparlantes enfrentamos. Tales peculiaridades explican el conflicto que experimentan los estudiantes latinoamericanos de posgrado en Estados Unidos, país cuya cultura es mucho más estricta en cuestión de plagios académicos y científicos. Al facilitar el acceso a la literatura científica, los avances digitales han propiciado los plagios, pero también el desarrollo de programas para detectar tales apropiaciones. Además del burdo "copiar y pegar", las herramientas para parafrasear han refinado y quizá aumentado el llamado "parafragio". Así, el novedoso ChatGPT puede usarse para plagiar y "parafragiar". Peor aún, la inclusión del ChatGPT como coautor de artículos científicos ha llevado a que el International Committee of Medical Journal Editors y editoriales de prestigio precisen que tal recurso no debe incluirse en la lista de autores. Para evitar el plagio, basta dar siempre el crédito a quien corresponda y apropiadamente. Por último, cuestiono la fe ciega en el progreso y el nulo escepticismo ahora imperantes que nos impiden prever las consecuencias negativas de los avances tecnológicos.

Characteristics of Retracted Publications From Kazakhstan: An Analysis Using the Retraction Watch Database.

BACKGROUND: Retraction is a correction process for the scientific literature that acts as a barrier to the dissemination of articles that have serious faults or misleading data. The purpose of this study was to investigate the characteristics of retracted papers from Kazakhstan. METHODS: Utilizing data from Retraction Watch, this cross-sectional descriptive analysis documented all retracted papers from Kazakhstan without regard to publication dates. The following data were recorded: publication title, DOI number, number of authors, publication date, retraction date, source, publication type, subject category of publication, collaborating country, and retraction reason. Source index status, Scopus citation value, and Altmetric Attention Score were obtained. RESULTS: Following the search, a total of 92 retracted papers were discovered. One duplicate article was excluded, leaving 91 publications for analysis. Most articles were retracted in 2022 (n = 22) and 2018 (n = 19). Among the identified publications, 49 (53.9%) were research articles, 39 (42.9%) were conference papers, 2 (2.2%) were review articles, and 1 (1.1%) was a book chapter. Russia (n = 24) and China (n = 5) were the most collaborative countries in the retracted publications. Fake-biased peer review (n = 38), plagiarism (n = 25), and duplication (n = 14) were the leading causes of retraction. CONCLUSION: The vast majority of the publications were research articles and conference papers. Russia was the leading collaborative country. The most prominent retraction reasons were fake-biased peer review, plagiarism, and duplication. Efforts to raise researchers' understanding of the grounds for retraction and ethical research techniques are required in Kazakhstan.

Research Misconduct Investigations in China's Science Funding System.

As stewards of public money, government funding agencies have the obligation and responsibility to uphold the integrity of funded research. Despite an increasing amount of empirical studies examining research-related misconduct, a majority of these studies focus on retracted publications. How agencies spot funding-relevant wrongdoing and what sanctions the offenders face remain largely unexplored. This is particularly true for public funding agencies in emerging science powers. To amend this oversight, we retrieved and analyzed all publicized investigation results from China's largest basic research funding agency over the period from 2005 to 2021. Our findings reveal that both the "police patrol" and "fire alarm" approaches are used to identify misconduct and deter funding-related fraud in China. The principal triggers for investigations are journal article retractions, whistleblowing, and plagiarism detection software. Among the six funding-related misconduct types publicized and punished, the top three are: (1) fraudulent papers, (2) information fabrication and/or falsification in the research proposal, and (3) proposal plagiarism. The most common administrative sanctions are debarment and reclamation of grants. This article argues that more systematic research and cooperation among stakeholders is needed to cultivate research integrity in emerging science powers like China. Specific training and education should be provided for young scientists to help them avoid the pitfall of academic misconduct.

Plagiarism: A Bird's Eye View.

Plagiarism is among the prevalent misconducts reported in scientific writing and common causes of article retraction in scholarly journals. Plagiarism of idea is not acceptable by any means. However, plagiarism of text is a matter of debate from culture to culture. Herein, I wish to reflect on a bird's eye view of plagiarism, particularly plagiarism of text, in scientific writing. Text similarity score as a signal of text plagiarism is not an appropriate index and an expert should examine the similarity with enough scrutiny. Text recycling in certain instances might be acceptable in scientific writing provided that the authors could correctly construe the text piece they borrowed. With introduction of artificial intelligence-based units, which help authors to write their manuscripts, the incidence of text plagiarism might increase. However, after a while, when a universal artificial unit takes over, no one will need to worry about text plagiarism as the incentive to commit plagiarism will be abolished, I believe.