Correcting the Scientific Record: Retraction Practices in Chemistry and Materials Science

  title={Correcting the Scientific Record: Retraction Practices in Chemistry and Materials Science},
  author={François-Xavier Coudert},
  journal={Chemistry of Materials},
For how long and with what relevance do genetics articles retracted due to research misconduct remain active in the scientific literature
Although most retractions were appropriately handled by journals, the gravest issue was that median time to retraction for articles retracted for falsification/fabrication was nearly 5 years, earning close to 6800 post-retraction citations. Expand
Multiple co-first authors, co-corresponding authors and co-supervisors: a synthesis of shared authorship credit
PurposeAuthorship is the ultimate status of intellectual recognition in academic publishing. Although fairly robust guidelines have already been in place for a considerable amount of time regardingExpand
Understanding and Predicting Retractions of Published Work
This study believes to be the first of its kind to demonstrate the utility of machine learning as a tool for the assessment of retracted work and develops a random forest classifier to predict retraction in new samples with 73% accuracy and F1-score of 71%. Expand
Plagiarism, Fake Peer-Review, and Duplication: Predominant Reasons Underlying Retractions of Iran-Affiliated Scientific Papers
The Retraction Watch Database was searched to enumerate the retracted Iran-affiliated papers from December 2001 to December 2019 and the predominant reasons for retractions were outlined, with Duplication, plagiarism, and fake peer-review being the most frequent reasons. Expand
Revisiting the Ethical Aspects in Research Publications
Increasing peer-pressure for publishing research articles accounts for the several instances of misconducts in the form of fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, salami slicing and authorshipExpand
The Journal of Nanoparticle Research victim of an organized rogue editor network!
Following attacks on large companies, government bodies, and political parties, will scientific journals be the next victims of large-scale and complex hacks? As far as we know, this has neverExpand
The limitations of retraction notices and the heroic acts of authors who correct the scholarly record: An analysis of retractions of papers published from 1975 to 2019
  • Q. Vuong
  • Political Science, Computer Science
  • Learn. Publ.
  • 2020
Retraction notices need to be more informative; limitation sections ought to be a required and even an open section of all published articles; and promoting ‘heroic acts’ in science can positively change the current publishing culture. Expand
Avoiding a Retraction: Some Simple Guidelines on What NOT to Do.
Corrective factors for author- and journal-based metrics impacted by citations to accommodate for retractions
This work describes ways to correct the JIF, CiteScore, the 5-year Impact Factor, Immediacy Index, Cited Half-Life, Raw Impact per Paper and other JBMs (Eigenfactor Score and Article Influence Score) as well as the h-index, one of the most widespread ABMs, depending on the number of retractions for that journal or individual. Expand


PubMed Commons closes its doors to comments
The US National Institutes of Health shutters its journal-commenting platform. The US National Institutes of Health shutters its journal commenting platform.
Repetition of chemistry from a recently retracted paper. A cautionary note
Abstract The base-catalyzed condensation reaction between (E)-4-phenylbut-2-enal and phenylpropargyl aldehyde recently reported in the literature to provide formylcyclobutadiene was repeated underExpand
Amending published articles: time to rethink retractions and corrections?
Academic publishing is evolving and our current system of correcting research post-publication is failing, both ideologically and practically. It does not encourage researchers to engage in necessaryExpand
Why articles are retracted: a retrospective cross-sectional study of retraction notices at BioMed Central
The most common reason to retract was compromised peer review, and the majority of these cases date to March 2015 and appear to be the result of a systematic attempt to manipulate peer review across several publishers. Expand
Patterns of text reuse in a scientific corpus
This first comprehensive study of patterns of text reuse within the full texts of an important large scientific corpus, covering a 20-y timeframe, infer a baseline for accepted practice, perhaps surprisingly permissive compared with other societal contexts, and a clearly delineated set of aberrant authors. Expand
China's publication bazaar.
A thriving academic black market in China involving shady agencies, corrupt scientists, and compromised editors is exposed—many of them operating in plain view. Expand
The Retraction Penalty: Evidence from the Web of Science
It is shown that a single retraction triggers citation losses through an author's prior body of work, and citation losses among prior work disappear when authors self-report the error. Expand
Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?
Lower barriers to publication of flawed articles are seen in the increase in number and proportion of retractions by authors with a single retraction and an increase in retraction for “new” offenses such as plagiarism and a decrease in the time-to-retraction of flawed work. Expand
A Comprehensive Survey of Retracted Articles from the Scholarly Literature
The scope and characteristics of retracted articles across the full spectrum of scholarly disciplines were surveyed, and 15 prolific individuals accounted for more than half of all retractions due to alleged research misconduct, and strongly influenced all retraction characteristics. Expand
Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988–2008
Journals' retraction practices are not uniform and some retractions fail to state the reason, and therefore fail to distinguish error from misconduct, which is used to inform guidelines on retractions. Expand