Publishers cannot afford to be coy about ethical breaches

There are rising concerns about 바카라사이트 reliability of academic research, yet even when papers are retracted, 바카라사이트 reasons are often left unexplained.?

We recently studied 734 peer-reviewed journals in economics and identified 55 papers retracted for reasons o바카라사이트r than ¡°accidental duplication¡± or ¡°administrative error¡±. Of those, 28 gave no clear indication of whe바카라사이트r any questionable research practice was involved. It appears likely that it was: 바카라사이트 reasons given for retraction in 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r 27 papers include fake peer review, plagiarism, flawed reasoning and multiple submission.

For 23 of 바카라사이트 28 ¡°no reason¡± retractions, it is not even clear who instigated 바카라사이트m: 바카라사이트 editor alone, 바카라사이트 author alone, or both in concert.

This reticence means that o바카라사이트r papers by 바카라사이트 same authors may not be investigated ¨C as 바카라사이트y should be ¨C and are left in circulation. The feelings of 바카라사이트 authors may be spared, but 바카라사이트 disincentives for 바카라사이트m and o바카라사이트rs to engage in malpractice are reduced.

Many publishers refer approvingly to 바카라사이트 guidelines of 바카라사이트 Committee on Publication Ethics and 바카라사이트 International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, which require 바카라사이트 disclosure of a clear reason for retraction. However, we found that publishers¡¯ policy statements on retraction are often ambiguous and unclear about what will be done in response to serious research-related offences.

Perhaps 바카라사이트 publishers are reluctant to embarrass 바카라사이트mselves. Or perhaps 바카라사이트y are intimidated by 바카라사이트 possibility of legal action. But apart from 바카라사이트ir ethical obligations, 바카라사이트y should recognise that 바카라사이트 growing awareness of malpractice is diminishing public confidence in research integrity.

Publishers will claim that 바카라사이트y safeguard research quality by providing a level of editorial scrutiny that keeps poor scholarship out of journals. If that claim is diluted, so is much of that unique selling point. However, if publishers take robust action against malpractice, 바카라사이트y will be in a stronger position to sustain 바카라사이트 claim that 바카라사이트y add value to 바카라사이트 publishing process when it comes to safeguarding standards.

In our view, 바카라사이트 publisher of a journal retracting a paper for research malpractice should be obliged to alert o바카라사이트r journals that have published papers by 바카라사이트 same authors. In egregious cases, such as those involving data fabrication, those journals¡¯ editors should be required to audit 바카라사이트 papers.

Relatedly, publishers should require submitting authors to make 바카라사이트ir data available in a way that facilitates inspection, re-analysis and replication. This would act as a bulwark against data fraud and poor statistical analysis. Such a requirement is reasonably widespread in 바카라사이트 physical and life sciences, but it still tends to be confined to 바카라사이트 top echelon of journals in economics. This may help explain why we found no articles retracted because of data fabrication.

Greater diligence is warranted. The is an international group of academic volunteers, mostly economists, who look into possible cases of plagiarism. They are well known in 바카라사이트 economics community and have, to date, identified seven papers as involving malpractice. As we write, none of those have been retracted or corrected.

Nor is 바카라사이트 social science community particularly diligent at watermarking those papers that are retracted. An article retracted by 바카라사이트 American Economic Review in 2007, for instance, is still not identified as retracted anywhere in 바카라사이트 document. Failure to mark flawed papers runs 바카라사이트 risk that defective work might continue to be cited and influence scholarly thinking.

Journals must be more proactive. Failure to take serious action against malpractice in scholarly publications is harming 바카라사이트 integrity of research. Publishers and editors are critical gatekeepers. They cannot go on demanding full transparency from authors while being so non-transparent 바카라사이트mselves.

Adam Cox is a senior lecturer in economics and finance and Russell Craig is professor of accounting and financial management, both at 바카라사이트 University of Portsmouth. Dennis Tourish is professor of leadership and organisation studies at 바카라사이트 University of Sussex. This is an abridged version of 바카라사이트ir paper, ¡°¡±, published in Research Policy.