Have a personal or library account? Click to login
A comparative study on characteristics of retracted publications across different open access levels Cover

A comparative study on characteristics of retracted publications across different open access levels

Journal of Data and Information Science
Volume 9 (2024): Issue 2 (April 2024)
By: Er-Te Zheng and  Hui-Zhen Fu  
Open Access
|May 2024

References

  1. Bar-Ilan, J., & Halevi, G. (2018). Temporal characteristics of retracted articles. Scientometrics, 116(3), 1771-1783.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  2. Björk, B. C., & Solomon, D. (2015). Article processing charges in OA journals: relationship between price and quality. Scientometrics, 103(2), 373-385.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  3. Bohannon, J. (2013). Who’s Afraid of Peer Review? Science, 342(6154), 60-65.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  4. Brainard, J., & You, J. (2018). What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about science publishing’s ‘death penalty’. Science, 25(1), 1–5.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  5. Butler, D. (2013). Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing. Nature News, 495(7442), 433.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  6. Chambers, L. M., Michener, C. M., & Falcone, T. (2019). Plagiarism and data falsification are the most common reasons for retraction publications in obstetrics and gynaecology. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 126 (9), 1134-1140.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  7. Chan, L., Cuplinskas, D., Eisen, M., et al. (2002). Budapest open access initiative. ARL Bimonthly, 48.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  8. Chen, W., Xing, Q. R., Wang, H., & Wang, T. (2018). Retracted publications in the biomedical literature with authors from mainland China. Scientometrics, 114(1), 217-227.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  9. Craig, I. D., Plume, A. M., McVeigh, M. E., Pringle, J., & Amin, M. (2007). Do open access articles have greater citation impact?: a critical review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 1(3), 239-248.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  10. Dal-Ré, R., & Ayuso, C. (2019). Reasons for and time to retraction of genetics articles published between 1970 and 2018. Journal of medical genetics, 56(11), 734-740.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  11. European Commission. (2020). Responsible Open Science: an ethics and integrity perspective. Retrieved June 1, 2021 from: https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/topic-details/swafs-30-2020.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  12. European Commission. (2021). Open Innovation, Open Science, Open to the World. Retrieved June 1, 2021 from: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/speech_15_5243.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  13. Elango, B. (2021). Retracted articles in the biomedical literature from Indian authors. Scientometrics, 126(5), 3965-3981.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  14. Elia, N., Wager, E., & Tramèr, M. R. (2014). Fate of articles that warranted retraction due to ethical concerns: a descriptive cross-sectional study. PLoS One, 9(1), e85846.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  15. Erfanmanesh, M., & Teixeira Da Silva, J. A. (2019). Is the soundness-only quality control policy of open access mega journals linked to a higher rate of published errors? Scientometrics, 120(2), 917-923.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  16. Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(42), 17028-17033.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  17. Foo, J. Y. A. (2011). A retrospective analysis of the trend of retracted publications in the field of biomedical and life sciences. Science and engineering ethics, 17(3), 459-468.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  18. Fox, M., & Beall, J. (2014). Advice for plagiarism whistleblowers. Ethical & Behavior, 24(5), 341-349.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  19. Freedman, L. P., & Inglese, J. (2014). The increasing urgency for standards in basic biologic research. Cancer research, 74(15), 4024-4029.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  20. Furman, J. L., Jensen, K., & Murray, F. (2012). Governing knowledge in the scientific community: Exploring the role of retractions in biomedicine. Research Policy, 41(2), 276-290.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  21. Gerber, P. (2006). What can we learn from the Hwang and Sudbø affairs? Medical Journal of Australia, 184(12), 632-635.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  22. Ghorbi, A., Fazeli-Varzaneh, M., Ghaderi-Azad, E., Ausloos, M., & Kozak, M. (2021). Retracted papers by Iranian authors: causes, journals, time lags, affiliations, collaborations. Scientometrics, 126(9), 7351-7371.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  23. Haunschild, R., Bornmann, L. (2021). Can tweets be used to detect problems early with scientific papers? A case study of three retracted COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 papers. Scientometrics, 126(6), 5181–5199.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  24. He, T. (2013). Retraction of global scientific publications from 2001 to 2010. Scientometrics, 96(2), 555-561.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  25. Liu, W., & Lei, L. (2021). Retractions in the Middle East from 1999 to 2018: a bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 126(6), 4687-4700.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  26. Nosek, B. A., Ebersole, C. R., DeHaven, A. C., & Mellor, D. T. (2018). The preregistration revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11), 2600-2606.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  27. Olson, S., & Griffiths, P. A. (1995). On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research. Retrieved June 1, 2021 from: http://www.sunstar-solutions.com/AOP/SOW/being_scientist.htm.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  28. Oransky, I. (2018). We’re officially launching our database today. Here’s what you need to know. Retrieved June 1, 2021 from: https://retractionwatch.com/2018/10/25/were-officially-launching-our-database-today-heres-what-you-need-to-know/.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  29. Peterson, G. M. (2013). Characteristics of retracted open access biomedical literature: A bibliographic analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(12), 2428-2436.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  30. Rai, R., & Sabharwal, S. (2017). Retracted publications in orthopaedics: prevalence, characteristics, and trends. The Journal of Bone and Joint surgery, 99(9), e44.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  31. Retraction Watch. (2018). Retraction Watch database user guide. Retrieved June 1, 2021 from: https://retractionwatch.com/retraction-watch-database-user-guide/.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  32. Richard, V. N. (2011). Science publishing: The trouble with retractions. Nature, 478(7367), 26-28.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  33. Shah, T. A., Gul, S., Bashir, S., Ahmad, S., Huertas, A., Oliveira, A., … & Chakraborty, K. (2021). Influence of accessibility (open and toll-based) of scholarly publications on retractions. Scientometrics, 126(6), 4589-4606.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  34. Sharma, K. (2021). Team size and retracted citations reveal the patterns of retractions from 1981 to 2020. Scientometrics, 126(10), 8363-8374.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  35. Shen, C., & Björk, B. C. (2015). ‘Predatory’open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC medicine, 13(1), 1-15.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  36. Shuai, X., Rollins, J., Moulinier, I., Custis, T., Edmunds, M., & Schilder, F. (2017). A multidimensional investigation of the effects of publication retraction on scholarly impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(9), 2225-2236.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  37. Steen, R. G., Casadevall, A., & Fang, F. C. (2013). Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?. PLoS ONE, 8(7), e68397-e68397.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  38. Stojanovski, J. (2015). Do Croatian open access journals support ethical research? Content analysis of instructions to authors. Biochemia medica, 25(1), 12-21.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  39. Tijdink, J. K., Horbach, S. P., Nuijten, M. B., & O’Neill, G. (2021). Towards a research agenda for promoting responsible research practices. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 16(4), 450-460.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  40. Trikalinos, N. A., Evangelou, E., & Ioannidis, J. P. (2008). Falsified papers in high-impact journals were slow to retract and indistinguishable from nonfraudulent articles. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 61(5), 464-470.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  41. Vadhera, A. S., Lee, J. S., Veloso, I. L., Khan, Z. A., Trasolini, N. A., Gursoy, S., … & Verma, N. N. (2022). Open access articles garner increased social media attention and citation rates compared with subscription access research articles: an altmetrics-based analysis. The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 50(13), 3690-3697.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  42. Vuong, Q. H., La, V. P., Hồ, M. T., Vuong, T. T., & Ho, M. T. (2020). Characteristics of retracted articles based on retraction data from online sources through February 2019. Science Editing, 7(1), 34-44.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  43. Wang, T., Xing, Q. R., Wang, H., & Chen, W. (2019). Retracted publications in the biomedical literature from open access journals. Science and engineering ethics, 25, 855-868.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  44. Wang, X., Liu, C., Mao, W., & Fang, Z. (2015). The open access advantage considering citation, article usage and social media attention. Scientometrics, 103(2), 555-564.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  45. Web of Science. (2021). Web of Science Core Collection Help. Retrieved June 1, 2021 from: http://images.webofknowledge.com//WOKRS535R111/help/WOS/hp_whatsnew_wos.html.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  46. Yeo-Teh, N. S. L., & Tang, B. L. (2022). Sustained Rise in Retractions in the Life Sciences Literature during the Pandemic Years 2020 and 2021. Publications, 10(3).
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  47. Zhang, M., & Grieneisen, M. L. (2013). The impact of misconduct on the published medical and non-medical literature, and the news media. Scientometrics, 96(2), 573-587.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  48. Zhang, Q., Abraham, J., & Fu, H. Z. (2020). Collaboration and its influence on retraction based on retracted publications during 1978–2017. Scientometrics, 125(1), 213-232.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2024-0010 | Journal eISSN: 2543-683X | Journal ISSN: 2096-157X
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 22 - 40
Submitted on: Aug 20, 2023
Accepted on: Feb 21, 2024
Published on: May 27, 2024
Published by: Chinese Academy of Sciences, National Science Library
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year
Keywords:
Open access,
Retracted publications,
Reasons for retraction,
Retraction time lag,
Bibliometrics
Related subjects:
Computer sciences,
Information technology,
Project management,
Databases and data mining

© 2024 Er-Te Zheng, Hui-Zhen Fu, published by Chinese Academy of Sciences, National Science Library
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 9 (2024): Issue 2 (April 2024)Next article