August 11, 2011

Is it time for a Retraction Index? - Retraction Watch

We often hear — with data to back the statement — that top-tier journals, ranked by impact factor, retract more papers than lower-tier journals. For example, when Murat Cokol and colleagues compared journals’ retraction numbers in EMBO Reports in 2007, as Nature noted in its coverage of that study (h/t Richard van Noorden):
"Journals with high impact factors retract more papers, and low-impact journals are more likely not to retract them, the study finds. It also suggests that high- and low-impact journals differ little in detecting flawed articles before they are published."
One thing you notice when you look at Cokol et al’s plots is that although their models seem to take retractions “per capita” — in other words per study published – into account, they don’t report those figures.
Enter a paper published this week in Infection and Immunity (IAI) by Ferric Fang and Arturo Casadevall, “Retracted Science and the Retraction Index.” Fang, the editor of IAI, takes scientific integrity and retractions very seriously. He’s made his thinking on these issues clear every time we’ve asked, and was part of the review of the the Naoki Mori case that led to a 10-year ban on Mori publishing in American Society of Microbiology journals (including IAI). >>>

No comments:

Random Posts


  • What are the consequences of scientific misconduct?

    Yun Xie What happens after a scientist has been found guilty of misconduct such as plagiarism, data manipulation, or fabrication of results? Does a guilty verdict mean permanent exile from the scientific community, or is there room for forgiveness? >>> READ MORE>>

  • Editorial Announcement: Withdrawal of Chin. Phys. Lett. 24 (2007) 355

    CHIN.PHYS.LETT.Vol. 25, No. 8 (2008) 3094This paper was submitted on 13 October 2006 and appeared in the February issue of 2007 in Chinese Physics Letters. Later it appeared also as arXiv: grqc/0704.0525 in April 2007.As noted recently by the arXiv administrator, this paper plagiarized an earlier ar... READ MORE>>

  • Editorial Announcement: Withdrawal of Chin. Phys. Lett. 24 (2007) 1821

    CHIN.PHYS.LETT.Vol. 25, No. 8 (2008) 3094This paper was submitted on 1 February 2007 and appeared in the July issue of 2007 in Chinese Physics Letters. Later it appeared also as arXiv:grqc/ 0707.1776 in July 2007.As noted recently by the arXiv administrator, this paper plagiarized an earlier arXiv p... READ MORE>>

  • Detecting Scientific Fraud : The Chronicle Review

    Dan Greenberg Fraud, fakery, or larceny is what ordinary people would call it. But in the sciences’ refined venues the proper term is “misconduct,” and there’s a lot more of it than official figures show, according to a report in Nature (19 June), “Repairing research integrity." >>> READ MORE>>

  • Allow me to rephrase, and boost my tally of articles: THE

    Rebecca AttwoodScholars are passing off old work as new to drive up publications counts. Pressure to publish is pushing many academics to plagiarise large volumes of their own work by "dressing up" their old research to appear as if it were new, a study has found.Researchers using text-matching s... READ MORE>>

  • Publish or perish, but at what cost?

    J Clin Invest. 2008 July 1; 118(7): 2368. doi: 10.1172/JCI36371. Ushma S. Neill, Executive EditorThe academic scientific enterprise rewards those with the longest CVs and the most publications. Under pressure to generate voluminous output, scientists often fall prey to double publishing, self plagi... READ MORE>>

  • Repairing research integrity : COMMENTARY: NATURE

    A survey suggests that many research misconduct incidents in the United States go unreported to the Office of Research Integrity. Sandra L. Titus, James A. Wells and Lawrence J. Rhoades say it’s time to change that.>>> READ MORE>>

.

.
.

Popular Posts