-
Journal of the Medical Library... Jan 2022Systematic reviews and other evidence syntheses, the pinnacle of the evidence pyramid, embody comprehensiveness and rigor; however, retracted data are being incorporated...
OBJECTIVE
Systematic reviews and other evidence syntheses, the pinnacle of the evidence pyramid, embody comprehensiveness and rigor; however, retracted data are being incorporated into these publications. This study examines the use of retracted publications in the field of pharmacy, describes characteristics of retracted publications cited by systematic reviews, and discusses factors associated with citation likelihood.
METHODS
Using data from Retraction Watch, we identified retracted publications in the pharmacy field. We identified all articles citing these retracted publications in Web of Science and Scopus and limited results to systematic reviews. We classified the retraction reason, determined whether the citation occurred before or after retraction, and analyzed factors associated with the likelihood of systematic reviews citing a retracted publication.
RESULTS
Of 1,396 retracted publications, 283 were cited 1,096 times in systematic reviews. Most (65.0%) (712/1096) citations occurred before retraction. Citations were most often to items retracted due to data falsification or manipulation (39.2%), followed by items retracted due to ethical misconduct including plagiarism (30.4%), or concerns about or errors in data or methods (26.2%). Compared to those not cited in systematic reviews, cited items were significantly more likely to be retracted due to data falsification and manipulation, were published in high impact factor journals, and had longer delays between publication and retraction.
CONCLUSIONS
Further analysis of systematic reviews citing retracted publications is needed to determine the impact of flawed data. Librarians understand the nuances involved and can advocate for greater transparency around the retraction process and increase awareness of challenges posed by retractions.
Topics: Bibliometrics; Pharmacy; Plagiarism; Scientific Misconduct; Systematic Reviews as Topic
PubMed: 35210962
DOI: 10.5195/jmla.2022.1280 -
Biochemia Medica Jun 2017Predatory journals, or journals that charge an article processing charge (APC) to authors, yet do not have the hallmarks of legitimate scholarly journals such as peer... (Review)
Review
Predatory journals, or journals that charge an article processing charge (APC) to authors, yet do not have the hallmarks of legitimate scholarly journals such as peer review and editing, Editorial Boards, editorial offices, and other editorial standards, pose a number of new ethical issues in journal publishing. This paper discusses ethical issues around predatory journals and publishing in them. These issues include misrepresentation; lack of editorial and publishing standards and practices; academic deception; research and funding wasted; lack of archived content; and undermining confidence in research literature. It is important that the scholarly community, including authors, institutions, editors, and publishers, support the legitimate scholarly research enterprise, and avoid supporting predatory journals by not publishing in them, serving as their editors or on the Editorial Boards, or permitting faculty to knowingly publish in them without consequences.
Topics: Humans; Internet; Journalism; Open Access Publishing; Peer Review, Research; Periodicals as Topic
PubMed: 28694719
DOI: 10.11613/BM.2017.030 -
AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology Feb 2019
Topics: Duplicate Publications as Topic; Periodicals as Topic; Plagiarism; Publishing; Radiology; United States
PubMed: 30667308
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.18.20672 -
Evaluation Review Feb 2015Research rankings based on bibliometrics today dominate governance in academia and determine careers in universities. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Research rankings based on bibliometrics today dominate governance in academia and determine careers in universities.
METHOD
Analytical approach to capture the incentives by users of rankings and by suppliers of rankings, both on an individual and an aggregate level.
RESULT
Rankings may produce unintended negative side effects. In particular, rankings substitute the "taste for science" by a "taste for publication." We show that the usefulness of rankings rests on several important assumptions challenged by recent research.
CONCLUSION
We suggest as alternatives careful socialization and selection of scholars, supplemented by periodic self-evaluations and awards. The aim is to encourage controversial discourses in order to contribute meaningful to the advancement of science.
Topics: Humans; Motivation; Observer Variation; Organizational Innovation; Peer Review; Professional Competence; Publications; Publishing; Science; Universities
PubMed: 25092865
DOI: 10.1177/0193841X14524957 -
Recenti Progressi in Medicina Jan 2017An old Italian proverb states that lies have short legs. In other words, in the end you get found out. This is exactly what happened to an Italian researcher who acted...
An old Italian proverb states that lies have short legs. In other words, in the end you get found out. This is exactly what happened to an Italian researcher who acted as a referee for a manuscript submitted in 2015 to Annals of Internal Medicine. After a negative report (which presumably led to the rejection of the submission) he submitted a manuscript which was essentially the same. But he and his accomplices got found out and paraded in front of the world in an earth-shatteringly polite "Dear Plagiarist" letter by the first robbed author: Dr Michael Dansinger. Dr Dansiger's letter is a model of polite logic and an ethical masterpiece, the fake article got retracted and the thief's institution contacted. No reply so far, a depressingly familiar theme in contemporary research. We wonder why we carry on with a system which is completely broken. Commercial interests, reporting bias, secrecy, ethically dubious studies and inertia are the ingredients of contemporary research and publication practices. Editorial peer review, a scholarly practice originating in a more genteel era, is clearly unable to do much other than lend a very thin veneer of credibility to this pandemic of junk which is threatening healthcare budgets and the ethics of the next generation of researchers. We need a complete reform of the system which could give back some credibility to the "e" of evidence-based medicine. Complete lawful transparency, public reimbursement of interventions only on the basis of independently generated evidence and research ethics as a part of an international curriculum for budding researchers are urgently needed. These should be linked to publishers' complete disclosure of their sources of income and custodial sentences for those who abuse positions of trust. Meanwhile, stay away from anything implausible and non-replicable (as they probably are).
Topics: Disclosure; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Italy; Periodicals as Topic; Plagiarism; Publishing
PubMed: 28151522
DOI: 10.1701/2624.26978 -
Journal of Biomolecular NMR Feb 2019
Topics: Organization and Administration; Periodicals as Topic; Publishing; Retirement; Serial Publications
PubMed: 30825034
DOI: 10.1007/s10858-019-00229-5 -
Medecine Sciences : M/S Jan 2023
Topics: Humans; Publications; Publishing
PubMed: 36692256
DOI: 10.1051/medsci/2022202 -
Arthroscopy : the Journal of... Nov 2023Least-publishable units, aka minimal publishable units, smallest publishable units, fractions of scholarly effort, and "salami slicing" divide a single research...
Least-publishable units, aka minimal publishable units, smallest publishable units, fractions of scholarly effort, and "salami slicing" divide a single research publication into a number of papers with small amounts of information in each paper. This results in quantity rather than quality; is ethically inappropriate; creates extra work for readers, future authors, reviewers, and editors; and can result in redundancy, self-plagiarism, publication overlap, and duplicate reporting of patient data that can result in inaccurate conclusions in systematic reviews. Increased awareness and actionable intervention can help to reverse this growing trend.
Topics: Humans; Publishing; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Plagiarism
PubMed: 37866858
DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2023.08.003 -
Revue de Pneumologie Clinique Dec 2018
Topics: France; History, 20th Century; History, 21st Century; Humans; Journal Impact Factor; Language; Periodicals as Topic; Publications; Publishing
PubMed: 30527220
DOI: 10.1016/j.pneumo.2018.11.002 -
Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive &... Jul 2020In the UK the BAPRAS (British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons) meetings have always represented the ideal platform for disseminating new...
In the UK the BAPRAS (British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons) meetings have always represented the ideal platform for disseminating new information in the field of plastic surgery. Previous studies have suggested the publication rate for these meetings has been falling. Our aim was to re-assess the conversion rates of presented abstracts to publications. All abstracts from BAPRAS meetings between Winter 2014 and Summer 2016 were included. PubMed and Google Scholar databases were used to search for full publications. A database was collated, this included; time to publication, journal of publication and impact factor of journal. A total of 500 abstracts were presented during the study period for which the publication rate was 28.4%. The average time to publication was 16.8 months. The most common publication journal was the Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery (JPRAS) (34%). Free papers were published in journals with significantly greater impact factors (p = 0.046). Publication rates were similar to previous literature for BAPRAS meetings and have increased since 2007. A continued downward trend of publication rates for BAPRAS meetings is not seen in our data. A reduction in the number of publications in JPRAS may be explained by a rise in the impact factor of the journal or increasing competitiveness for publications. When variations in methodology are accounted for publication rates are similar to other specialties. In order to continually assess the quality of papers presented at BAPRAS meetings, the conversion to publication should be regularly re-audited.
Topics: Bibliometrics; Publishing; Societies, Medical; Surgery, Plastic; United Kingdom
PubMed: 32241743
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2020.02.046