共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 656 毫秒
1.
随着生物医学领域文献发表量的快速增加,撤稿量也随之增加。本文通过检索PubMed收录的关于中国作者发表文章的撤稿文件,对其中的信息进行提取和统计学分析。结果显示:1)生物医学领域中国作者撤稿在2005年后进入快速增长,平均撤稿时间为16.55月,撤稿主要集中在影响因子为0～3的期刊(58.9％)。2)撤稿原因分别为重复发表或抄袭(40%),科学错误(15％),作者署名或版权问题(8%),伪造数据或怀疑伪造数据(5%)。3)因科学错误、重复发表或抄袭、伪造数据或怀疑伪造数据而撤稿的期刊平均影响因子之间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。4)非SCI给出不详撤稿信息的比例明显高于SCI期刊(P<0.05)。撤稿行为是对缺陷科学结论纠错的有效措施,从PubMed收录的对中国作者的撤稿声明分析中可以发现某些中国作者科学失范行为的模式,以及科技期刊编辑部对待撤稿的态度,并可借鉴经验制定出有针对性的措施,促进国内期刊出版环境的净化。 相似文献
2.
文章收集万方和PubMed数据库中被撤销论文的撤销时间、第一作者所在国家及地区、撤销原因等,进行统计学分析和排序研究,并提出应对学术论文撤销的措施.在设定检索时段内,在万方和PubMed数据库中,分别检索到40篇与178篇被撤销论文.两家数据库被撤销论文的年份分布构成比比较,差异无统计学意义(P=0.297).万方数据库中,被撤销论文前三位的地区分别为北京、广东、湖南.PubMed数据库中,中国被撤销论文数量最多,超过总撤稿量的三分之一,被撤销论文前三位的地区分别为上海、北京、广东.两家数据库论文被撤销的前三大原因,均分别为损害他人著作权或知识产权,一稿多投及数据/图、表重复发表,差错.然后,就应对我国学术论文撤销的严峻形势,我们提出建议,分别从国家层面、编辑层面、编辑部层面和数据库层面采取措施,遏制论文发表中的学术行为不端. 相似文献
3.
在国际著名的摘要和引文数据库Scopus中检索2015-2017年医学领域国际期刊的撤稿声明,收集并分析撤稿声明中的相关信息.检索后共获得1 015篇针对已发表正式论文的撤稿声明,声明数量逐年减少.发表撤稿声明较多的期刊,普遍质量不高,撤稿数量和期刊影响因子并没有明显的相关性.从Scopus上可以获得能提供有效撤稿相关信息的声明摘要共409篇,涉及文章419篇,学术不端是撤稿的主要原因,占所有撤稿原因的46.8％.撤稿文章来自38个国家,其中数量最多的为中国(97篇)、美国(95篇)、伊朗(53篇)、日本(28篇)、印度(22篇)、英国(14篇)、韩国(11篇).几乎所有国家的撤稿原因中都包括学术不端或重复发表.撤稿声明时滞为0～26年,中位数2年,平均值3.3年.学术不端的撤稿时滞中位数为3年,重复发表的撤稿时滞中位数为1年. 相似文献
4.
During the past twenty years, more than ninety retraction notices have been published in biomedical journals. These retractions constitute a unique body of literature that biomedical researchers, bibliographers, and librarians must monitor to reduce scientific use of retracted, invalid papers. An analysis of medical retraction notices shows that very few are prominent in style, format, or placement, in spite of authoritative publication standards formulated by the International Council of Medical Journal Editors. Although researchers are ultimately responsible for the validity of the information they cite in their own publications, biomedical librarians are in a unique position to educate their patrons regarding retracted papers. 相似文献
5.
以中国知网的撤销论文声明为样本,调查我国当前撤销论文的主体构成,并与国外的撤销声明主体进行对比,分析我国撤销论文声明的特征。调查表明:截至2018年12月,中国知网撤销论文声明的主体为:编辑部64%,作者13%,无署名11%,编委会9%,其他3%。撤销的多为学术不端论文,撤销主体以期刊方为主;作者、作者机构、社会团体等其他主体在撤销论文中的作用还急需增强。提高各个主体的参与度,并建立撤销论文制度,将促进我国论文撤销的合理开展。 相似文献
6.
《Journal of Informetrics》2023,17(3):101423
Retractions are necessary to remove flawed research from citable literature but cannot offset the negative impact those publications have on science advances and public trust. The editorial peer-review process is intended to prevent flawed research from being published. However, there is limited empirical evidence of its effectiveness in identifying issues that lead to retractions. This study analyzed the peer-review comments (provided by Clarivate Analytics) for a sample of retracted publications (provided by Retraction Watch) to investigate how the peer-review process effectively detects the areas where the retraction causes lie and whether reviewer characteristics are related to the effectiveness. We found that a small proportion of peer reviews suggested rejections during the peer review stage, while about half suggested acceptance or minor revision for those later retracted papers. The peer-review process was more effective in identifying retraction causes related to data, methods, and results than those related to text plagiarism and references. Additionally, factors such as reviewer seniority and the level of match between reviewers’ expertise and the submission were significant in determining the possibility of peer reviews identifying suspicious areas in submissions. We discussed potential insights from these findings and called for collective efforts to prevent retractions. 相似文献
7.
Quan‐Hoang Vuong 《Learned Publishing》2020,33(2):119-130
While researchers with retracted papers – publications that are withdrawn because of significant errors or scientific misconduct – carry a permanent stain on their publishing records, understanding the causes and initiators of such retractions can shed a different light on the matter. This paper, based on a random sample of 2,046 retracted papers, which were published between 1975 and 2019, extracted from Retraction Watch and the websites of major publishers, shows that 53% of the retraction notices do not specify who initiated the retraction. Nearly 10% of the retraction notes either omit or do not contain information related to reasons for retractions. Furthermore, most of the retracted papers in our sample have no limitation section; those who do are commonly unhelpful or irrelevant. The results carry three implications for scientific transparency: retraction notices need to be more informative; limitation sections ought to be a required and even an open section of all published articles; and finally, promoting ‘heroic acts’ in science can positively change the current publishing culture. 相似文献
8.
The purpose of this survey was to investigate journal editors' use of CrossCheck, powered by iThenticate, to detect plagiarism, and their attitude to potential plagiarism once discovered. A 22‐question survey was sent to 3,305 recipients, primarily scholarly journal editors from Anglophone countries, and a reduced 10‐question version to 607 editors from non‐Anglophone countries. The response rate was 5.6%. 42% of all respondents had used CrossCheck in their work. The main findings are as follows: (1) the plagiarism detection tool and its similarity report are extremely useful and effective and can assist editors in screening documents suspected of plagiarism; (2) responses show the journal editors' attitude and level of tolerance towards different kinds of plagiarism in different disciplines; (3) the survey results underscore a clear consensus on editorial standards on plagiarism, but there were small variations between different disciplines and countries, as well as between Anglophone and non‐Anglophone. The study also suggests that further work is needed to establish a universal principle and practical approaches to prevent plagiarism and duplicate publication. 相似文献
9.
分析PubMed数据库中撤销的造假论文的特征及学术净化效果.发现近10年间撤销造假论文433篇,分布在25个国家,日本最多,美国次之,其次是德国、印度和中国.造假论文分布在178种期刊上,主要涉及数据、图片造假.造假论文数量大致是逐年增长.撤销主体主要是作者、主编、编辑.造假论文撤销前后年均被引频次差异显著(P＜0.05).揭示了撤销的造假论文的主要分布特征及对学术界的净化效果.造假现象的严峻形势希望能够给研究者以警示,并强调作者、编辑在学术环境净化中的主体作用. 相似文献
10.
国内学术期刊刊登撤稿声明的分析 总被引：3，自引：0，他引：3
刊登撤稿声明是学术期刊配合学术打假的重要手段。分析从国内数据库中检索到的45篇撤稿声明和被撤的55篇论文,发现因各种学术不端引起的撤稿占64％,大多数被撤论文仍能在数据库中找到全文。初步探讨了被撤论文的特点和发布撤稿声明时应注意的问题。 相似文献
11.
12.
13.
14.
《Journal of Informetrics》2022,16(3):101304
The way retracted papers have been mentioned in post-retraction citations reflects the perception of the citing authors. The characteristics of post-retraction citations are therefore worth studying to provide insights into the prevention of the citation chain of retracted papers. In this study, full-text analysis is used to compare the distinctions of citation location and citation sentiment—attitudes and dispositions toward the cited work—between the conditions of correctly mentioning the retracted status (called CM) and not mentioning the retracted status (called NM). Statistical test is carried out to explore the effect of CM on post-retraction citations in the field of psychology. It is shown that the citation sentiment of CM is equally distributed as negative, neutral, and positive, while for NM, it is mainly distributed as the latter two. CM papers tend to cite retracted papers in Methodology, whereas NM papers cite more in Theoretical Background and Conclusion. The perception efficiency of retractions in psychology is low, where the average unaware duration (UD, the period between when the retraction note has been published and when the first citation directly pointed out its retracted status) lasts for 2.88 years. Also, UD is negatively correlated with the quantity of CM and the growth rate of NM, the proportionate change of NM before and after the first CM paper appears (P <0.01). After being aware of retractions, the average rate of change (ARC, the total change divided by its taken time) of NM declines significantly (Z=-2.823, P <0.01) whereas CM sees a raise in most disciplines, which contributes to the reduction of possible interdisciplinary impact. 相似文献
15.
Conference proceedings are one of the most important forms of communication for computer scientists. This study investigated the policies of a large number of computer science journals with regard to the republication of papers which had already appeared in conference proceedings. Nearly one‐quarter of journal editors would not republish such papers other than in special circumstances (such as a special conference issue), and almost all of the remainder would do so only after substantial updating and expansion of the original paper. Many specified the amount of content that should be new: 30% was the proportion most frequently mentioned. Thus, many sections of text may be identical to the original paper. However, some journal editors do not appear to consider this self‐plagiarism provided the original publication is properly cited. Nevertheless, such (re)publication is likely to lead to high similarity scores in CrossCheck; in this field, therefore, journal editors need to exercise particular discretion when evaluating CrossCheck results. 相似文献
16.
Internationalization of scientific publishing over time: Analysing publishers and fields differences 
下载免费PDF全文
下载免费PDF全文 The changes in journal internationality in mainstream science were examined using 1,398 journals and 2,557,229 papers during 1991–2014. The authors’ country of affiliation in journals’ papers and references of multinational and national publishers were analysed. The results showed that journals’ papers and references have become more globalized over time. On average, older journals are more international than the newer ones. Although multinational publishers publish more international journals than the national ones do, journals from national publishers have internationalized faster than those from multinationals. The difference between these two groups of publishers is much greater in authoring compared to referencing. For both groups of publishers, the most changes in journal internationality occurred between the fourth and sixth year of indexing in Web of Science. Journals and papers in Humanities journals have the highest rate of increase of internationality although Natural Sciences and Engineering and Technology have the most international papers. Agricultural Sciences has the least international papers; however, these papers cite a wider range of countries’ papers compared to other fields. Journals in Medical and Health Sciences, Natural Sciences, and Agricultural Sciences have the most international references. 相似文献
17.
统计发现2017年1月—2019年12月3大中文数据库共撤销54篇论文。撤销声明中撤销主体还算明确,但存在撤销原因不清晰问题;数据库存在撤销发布形式不统一,一个数据库撤销而另一数据库未撤销现象,易导致继续引用从而使错误信息继续传播。建议国家有关部门尽快对论文撤销声明的要求和格式制订规范,期刊和数据库按照规范提交和处理撤销论文。 相似文献
18.
OBJECTIVE: The authors characterized the output of MEDLINE papers by language and country of publication during a thirty-four-year time period. METHODS: We classified MEDLINE's journal articles by country of publication (Anglos/Non-Anglos) and language (English/Non-English) for the years 1966 and from 1970 to 2000 at five-year intervals. Eight English-speaking countries were considered Anglos. Linear regression analysis of number of papers versus time was performed. RESULTS: The global number of papers increased linearly at a rate of 8,142 papers per year. Anglo and English papers also increased linearly (6,740 and 9,199, respectively). Journals of Non-Anglo countries accounted for 25% of the English language increase (2,438 per year). Only Non-English papers decreased at a rate of 1,056 fewer papers per year. These trends have led to overwhelming shares of English and Anglo papers in MEDLINE. In 2000, 68% of all papers were published in the 8 Anglo countries and 90% were written in English. CONCLUSIONS: The Anglo and English preponderances appear to be a consequence of at least two phenomena: (1) editorial policy changes in MEDLINE and in some journals from Non-Anglo countries and (2) factors affecting Non-Anglo researchers in the third world (publication constraints, migration, and undersupport). These are tentative conclusions that need confirmation. 相似文献
19.
由Web of Science数据库分析高影响力中华医学会系列期刊引发的思考 总被引：4，自引：0，他引：4
通过Web of Science数据库的“被引参考文献检索”途径,将中华医学会123种非SCI期刊作为国内大量的非SCI科技期刊的代表,统计其刊载文献被SCI期刊引用的情况;以被引文献数量大于50篇作为高影响力期刊的筛选条件,分析其中高影响力期刊的被引文献数量、单篇被引文献最高引用频次、施引文献数量、施引文献最高被引频次以及施引文献的国家地区分布、出版年份分布,从而了解这些非SCI科技期刊的国际影响力.基于这一分析,认为SCI期刊并非是获得同行认可的唯一途径,国内大量的非SCI科技期刊应走“立足国内,面向世界”的发展道路,以踏实做专业领域内有影响力的期刊为目标;同时呼吁国家有关部门能对现行科研评价指标进行调整,鼓励质量上乘的稿件能选择具有影响力的国内期刊发表. 相似文献
20.
委托办中华系列杂志一稿两投重复发表的现状与对策 总被引：21，自引：10，他引：11
探讨解决一稿两投、重复发表问题的有效措施。给47刑发了统一的调查信，收回25封（刊）。25刊中存在一稿两投问题的稿件有14篇，涉及9个刊，占36%。其中6篇没有造成重复发表的事实，8篇形成了重复发表的事实，占57.14%。结论：1）同一篇论文将作者的署名顺序变化后，投寄不同的期刊，属一稿两投或多投；2）投到不同期刊的论文，半数以上内容（包括资料或讨论部分）相同时，属一稿两投；3）同一篇论文将题名变化后投寄不同的期刊，属一稿两投；4）同一组资料从不同的角度去写作（研究问题），不属一稿两投；5）同一篇论文以不同的文字发表属平行发表，不属一稿两投或多投；6）同一篇论文在内部资料与公开发行的刊物上分别发表，不属一稿两投。处理一稿两投，尤其重复发表问题要从严，但重在预防：1）加强宣传，提高作者、编者的法律意识；2）在相关期刊上公布有关的处罚规定，以达到警示目的；3）要求作者在授权书中承诺不存在一稿两投、重复发表问题；4）统一介绍信的格式与内容，依靠单位审查把关；5）实现资源共享联网查询；6）依靠审稿人把关。 相似文献