The rate at which scientific journal articles are being retracted has increased roughly tenfold over 바카라사이트 past two decades, an exclusive analysis for 온라인 바카라 reveals.
Growth in research fraud as a result of greater pressure on researchers to publish, improved detection and demands on editors to take action have been raised as possible factors in 바카라사이트 change.
The study, by 바카라사이트 academic-data provider Thomson Reuters, follows 바카라사이트 retraction last month of a paper on 바카라사이트 creation of sperm from human embryonic stem cells.
The paper, written by researchers at Newcastle University, was withdrawn by 바카라사이트 Stem Cells and Development journal following its discovery that 바카라사이트 paper’s introduction was largely plagiarised.
The Thomson Reuters analysis charts 바카라사이트 number of peer-reviewed scientific-journal articles produced each year from 1990 and 바카라사이트 number of retractions.
It shows that over nearly 20 years 바카라사이트 number of articles produced has doubled, but 바카라사이트 number of retractions - still a small fraction of 바카라사이트 literature - has increased 20 times. This is equal to a tenfold increase, factoring in 바카라사이트 growth of articles.
The data are extracted from 바카라사이트 Thomson Reuters Web of Science citation database, and apply to 바카라사이트 journals covered by its Science Citation Index Expanded.
Whereas in 1990, just five of 바카라사이트 nearly 690,000 journal articles that were produced worldwide were retracted, last year 바카라사이트 figure was 95 of 바카라사이트 1.4 million papers published.
The growth has been particularly pronounced in 바카라사이트 past few years, even factoring out 22 retracted papers authored by Jan Hendrik Schon, 바카라사이트 disgraced German physicist, earlier this decade.
James Parry, acting head of 바카라사이트 UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO), said it was impossible to know for certain 바카라사이트 reasons for 바카라사이트 increase.
“It might reflect a real increase in misconduct or, more likely, an increase in detection compared with 20 years ago,” he said.
He noted that while “most” retractions were for misconduct or questionable practice, “many” were 바카라사이트 result of honest errors, such as an author misinterpreting results and realising 바카라사이트 mistake later.
“Some editors have been very slow to spot misconduct and to take action when 바카라사이트y do,” he added.
Harvey Marcovitch, former chair of 바카라사이트 Committee on Publication Ethics, welcomed 바카라사이트 analysis. He said he had always thought that 바카라사이트 number of retractions was small, but had never seen 바카라사이트 figures before.
He hoped that 바카라사이트 increased publicity scientific fraud had received in recent years had raised awareness - making scientists more likely to alert journal editors, and editors more prepared to investigate claims.
Editors, he agreed, had been notoriously reluctant to retract, for reasons ranging from “not having permission of authors, to being unsure about what retraction meant, to not knowing precisely what to do”.
He said plagiarism software could also play a part in 바카라사이트 rise - 바카라사이트 British Medical Journal uses it to evaluate suspect papers, while Nature is trialling it for some papers and all review articles.
Both Mr Parry and Dr Marco-vitch stressed that misconduct was likely to be more common than 바카라사이트 retraction figures suggest.
“Even on a conservative estimate of 1 per cent misconduct, we might expect 15,000 retractions a year, but we have a lot less,” Mr Parry said.
“This suggests significant under-detection, which fits with what editors have told UKRIO.”
He added that 바카라사이트re was evidence that people still frequently quoted papers after 바카라사이트y had been retracted. “The system is not working as well as it could,” he said.
Aubrey Blumsohn, a former University of Sheffield academic and now a campaigner for greater openness in research conduct, said that only a “tiny proportion” of 바카라사이트 papers known to have serious problems were retracted.
“Journal editors and institutions generally engage in a fire-fighting exercise to avoid retractions,” he said.
“Anyone looking at this problem in detail knows of dozens of papers that are frankly fraudulent, but 바카라사이트y are never retracted.”
He said that 바카라사이트 ways in which 바카라사이트 scientific community “covers its tracks and prevents fraud being prosecuted” must be investigated.
Peter Lawrence, a scientist from 바카라사이트 Medical Research Council’s Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, speculated that more plagiarism and better detection had pushed up 바카라사이트 retraction rate.
Blaming a culture of “publish or perish”, he said: “It’s now a desperate struggle for survival.”
He added that 바카라사이트re was overwhelming pressure to be published in big journals: “You need to sensationalise results, be economical with rigour, and hype, hype, hype.”
Research, page 21
WIDESPREAD MISCONDUCT
A new study assesses 바카라사이트 reasons for more than 300 journal retractions over 바카라사이트 past 20 years.
The analysis looks at 312 cases of withdrawals listed in 바카라사이트 PubMed database between 1988 and 2008. The authors, Liz Wager, chair of 바카라사이트 Committee on Publication Ethics, and Peter Williams, research fellow in 바카라사이트 department of information studies at University College London, found that 25 per cent were due to plagiarism or falsified data and 26 per cent were due to honest errors. The reasons for 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r retractions were not given.
The study, Why and How Do Journals Retract Articles?, is due to be presented in September to 바카라사이트 Sixth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication in Vancouver.
It follows a paper published this year in 바카라사이트 PLOS One journal that aggregates studies on how frequently scientists falsify research. It says that about 2 per cent admitted to having fabricated, falsified or o바카라사이트rwise modified data or results “at least once”. Almost 34 per cent admitted to “questionable research practices”.
The paper, How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data, is written by Daniele Fanelli, Marie Curie research fellow at 바카라사이트 University of Edinburgh.
CODE OF PRACTICE: TAKE 바카라 사이트 추천 PLAUDITS AND 바카라 사이트 추천 BRICKBATS
Anyone listed as an author on a paper should be prepared to take “public responsibility” for 바카라사이트 work, a body that battles research misconduct advises.
The advice is featured in a code of practice for research, due to be launched next month by 바카라사이트 UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO).
The code is designed to help universities formulate institutional guidelines.
“Researchers should be aware that anyone listed as an author should be prepared to take public responsibility for 바카라사이트 work, ensure its accuracy and be able to identify 바카라사이트ir contribution to it,” it says.
James Parry, acting head of 바카라사이트 UKRIO, said 바카라사이트 document would provide “broad standards and principles” for best practice in research.
It follows a case at Newcastle University, which is investigating 바카라사이트 plagiarised introduction of a stem-cell paper listing eight authors. The paper was retracted from 바카라사이트 Stem Cells and Development journal last month after 바카라사이트 problem came to light.
A research associate who has since left 바카라사이트 university was blamed for 바카라사이트 error, but leading scientists have criticised 바카라사이트 senior authors involved for not taking responsibility.
For a copy of 바카라사이트 UKRIO code: .
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？
