Lack of Improvement in Scientific Integrity: An Analysis of WoS Retractions by Chinese Researchers (1997–2016)

Abstract

This study investigated the status quo of article retractions by Chinese researchers. The bibliometric information of 834 retractions from the Web of Science SCI-expanded database were downloaded and analysed. The results showed that the number of retractions increased in the past two decades, and misconduct such as plagiarism, fraud, and faked peer review explained approximately three quarters of the retractions. Meanwhile, a large proportion of the retractions seemed typical of deliberate fraud, which might be evidenced by retractions authored by repeat offenders of data fraud and those due to faked peer review. In addition, a majority of Chinese fraudulent authors seemed to aim their articles which contained a possible misconduct at low-impact journals, regardless of the types of misconduct. The system of scientific evaluation, the "publish or perish" pressure Chinese researchers are facing, and the relatively low costs of scientific integrity may be responsible for the scientific integrity. We suggested more integrity education and severe sanctions for the policy-makers, as well as change in the peer review system and transparent retraction notices for journal administrators.

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

“…Other studies have focussed on retractions in specific countries and noted some disturbing trends. In their analyses of retracted publications of authors of Korean and Chinese origins, respectively, both Park, Lee, and Kwon (2018) and Lei and Zhang (2018) find that the majority of the retractions were due to deliberate scientific misconducts, such as duplication, unreliable data/ image/results, authorship problem, plagiarism, falsification, fake peer review, and conflict of interest. These findings confirm what Fang, Steen, and Casadevall (2012) have concluded in a review of 2,047 retracted biomedical and life science research articles, such that fraud or suspected fraud, duplicate publication, and plagiarism account for a larger share of the retractions.…”

“…A potential explanation for the ambiguous euphemisms used in retraction notices is journal editors trying to avoid legal actions from the authors in retracting an article without their consent (Fanelli, 2013b). From the current literature, it seems that there is no conclusive evidence on the link between the prevalence of fraudulent papers in journals with high impact factors (IF; Cokol, Iossifov, Rodriguez-Esteban, & Rzhetsky, 2007;Lei & Zhang, 2018;Steen, 2011). The association between a high-impact journal and retraction frequency can be attributed to two reasons.…”

Fake Peer Review and Inappropriate Authorship Are Real Evils

“…By June 2018, that figure had increased to > 600 retractions with the vast majority concerning manuscripts from Asia while there were > 700 papers retracted by inappropriate authorship or related issues and predominantly with the same continental origin 34. An analysis of retracted publications by Chinese authors — including 24 repeat offenders with > 5 retractions each — during the period 1997–2016 revealed about 12% (100/834) of retractions due to FPR mostly in low-impact journals 35. Searching in PubMed and Web of Science in May 2017, Chen et al36 documented that 137/825 (15.5%) retracted papers (95 original articles and 42 meta-analyses) from mainland China were invalidated by FPR.…”

Retractions among Indian Scientific Authors: Multiple Offenders 

“…According to many authors, the increase in retractions in the scientific community reflects the severe disease that has been spreading all over the science world (e.g., Aspura et al 2018;Lei and Zhang 2018;Moradi and Janavi 2018;Elango et al 2019). Fanelli (2013), however, offers a different point of view: This increase is actually a good sign for science because it results from the improved skills of researchers and journal editors to identify fraudulent publications.…”