64
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    1
    shares

      To submit to the journal, please click here

      We invite news and articles concerning all aspects of academic and professional publishing. Papers are welcomed from across the scholarly publishing community.

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      The relationship and incidence of three editorial notices in PubPeer : Errata, expressions of concern, and retractions

      1 , 2
      Learned Publishing
      John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
      editorial notices, PubPeer

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This article studies the incidence and relationship of three important relevant editorial notices: errata, expressions of concern, and retractions. The journal club PubPeer was used to extract 39,449 research articles and the 2,308 errata, 189 expressions of concern, and 1,531 retractions associated with these publications. The relationship, time delay, and evolution of these publications were then compared, as was their incidence in journals and disciplines. The results show that the relationship between them is scant, the increase in these notices is in proportion to the scientific literature, and the time delay between publication and editorial notice is frequently over 3 years. According to incidence, editorial notices are more frequent in journals specializing in biochemistry, medicine, and multidisciplinarity, and cancer journals release more errata. Research areas with more editorial notices are the life and health sciences. The research fields with the highest percentages of errata and retractions are Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, and Immunology and Microbiology. It is recognized that the use of PubPeer as a data source may have influenced the results.

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications.

            A detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012 revealed that only 21.3% of retractions were attributable to error. In contrast, 67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%). Incomplete, uninformative or misleading retraction announcements have led to a previous underestimation of the role of fraud in the ongoing retraction epidemic. The percentage of scientific articles retracted because of fraud has increased ∼10-fold since 1975. Retractions exhibit distinctive temporal and geographic patterns that may reveal underlying causes.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The perverse effects of competition on scientists' work and relationships.

              Competition among scientists for funding, positions and prestige, among other things, is often seen as a salutary driving force in U.S. science. Its effects on scientists, their work and their relationships are seldom considered. Focus-group discussions with 51 mid- and early-career scientists, on which this study is based, reveal a dark side of competition in science. According to these scientists, competition contributes to strategic game-playing in science, a decline in free and open sharing of information and methods, sabotage of others' ability to use one's work, interference with peer-review processes, deformation of relationships, and careless or questionable research conduct. When competition is pervasive, such effects may jeopardize the progress, efficiency and integrity of science.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Learned Publishing
                Learned Publishing
                John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
                0953-1513
                1741-4857
                April 2021
                October 17 2020
                April 2021
                : 34
                : 2
                : 164-174
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Institute for Advanced Social Studies (IESA‐CSIC) Córdoba Spain
                [2 ]Joint Research Unit Knowledge Transfer and Innovation, (UCO‐CSIC) Córdoba Spain
                Article
                10.1002/leap.1339
                82bceb05-b6ff-45a9-bd7a-d2277dc5de12
                © 2021

                http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor

                http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1

                History

                Assessment, Evaluation & Research methods,Intellectual property law,Information & Library science,Communication & Media studies
                PubPeer,editorial notices

                Comments

                Comment on this article