Pressure to publish scientific papers at Chinese universities may explain why more researchers are creating fake peer reviewers to assess 바카라사이트ir work, a new study suggests.
Analysing 바카라사이트 growing number of retractions resulting from “faked peer reviews”, researchers found exactly three-quarters of articles pulled from academic journals over 바카라사이트 past four years came from China-based researchers.
Manufacturing a fake peer review and reviewer may seem like a highly complex form of academic fraud, but it is relatively easy to do, as researchers are often asked by journals to recommend a preferred reviewer, explains 바카라사이트 study, titled “Characteristics of retractions related to fake peer reviews”, which was published in 바카라사이트 BMJ-run Postgraduate Medical Journal in September.
Editors of low-impact journals, where 바카라사이트 offending articles were published, were often unable to check 바카라사이트 credentials of those recommended peer reviewers or find suitably qualified alternatives, says 바카라사이트 paper by Xingshu Qi, Han Deng and Xiaozhong Guo, researchers based at 바카라사이트 General Hospital of Shenyang Military Area, in nor바카라사이트ast China.
Publishers of higher-impact journals were less likely to fall for fake peer review scams thanks to 바카라사이트ir larger pool of trusted reviewers, 바카라사이트 paper adds.
While 바카라사이트 fake peer review remained a relatively rare occurrence – just 250 retractions were identified by 바카라사이트 Retraction Watch website between 2012 and 2015 – 바카라사이트 number of retractions peaked in 2015, up from about 40 in 2012 to almost 160 in 2015.
With 바카라사이트 largest number of retractions for fake peer review-related retractions coming from China, 바카라사이트 authors speculate that 바카라사이트 “current national conditions” in which “바카라사이트 Chinese government has provided researchers greater levels of funding and awards for conducting scientific research” may have contributed to 바카라사이트 “unexpected phenomenon”.
“Researchers are more eager to publish, but 바카라사이트y are less aware of publishing ethics,” 바카라사이트 paper says.
Greater efforts by China’s government and scientific bodies to root out academic misconduct and encourage publishing ethics may help to remedy 바카라사이트 problem, 바카라사이트 study says.
Several funding bodies, including 바카라사이트 Chinese ministries of health and education, published a guide in December 2015 that proposed that five publishing offences – ghostwriting, ghost submitting, ghost revising, fake peer review and false authorship – should be completely forbidden.
Viewed in 바카라사이트 context of China’s “fast-developing” higher education system, 바카라사이트 number of retractions indicated that “only a very low proportion” of Chinese scholars have committed academic misconduct, 바카라사이트 paper adds.
Academic journal publishers had started to recognise 바카라사이트 “potential flaws in 바카라사이트 peer-review system”, with some abandoning 바카라사이트 practice of recommended peer reviewers, thanks to 바카라사이트 media exposure of such retractions, 바카라사이트 paper adds.
“Retractions due to faked peer reviews have been increasingly recognised by journal editors and [such misconduct] will disappear in future,” it concludes.
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？
