Retraction Note to multiple articles in Tumor Biology

Stigbrand, Torgny

doi:10.1007/s13277-017-5487-6

Cited by 52 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Extant research on retraction has revealed a disturbingly increasing trend of retractions [6][7][8][9], many high-profile cases of retraction [10,11], overdue retraction of problematic publications [7,12], and other thorny issues, such as continual post-retraction citations of retracted articles [6,[13][14][15][16]. A diversity of reasons for retraction have also been uncovered.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retraction Notices: Who Authored Them?

2018

Publications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Unlike other academic publications whose authorship is eagerly claimed, the provenance of retraction notices (RNs) is often obscured presumably because the retraction of published research is associated with undesirable behavior and consequently carries negative consequences for the individuals involved. The ambiguity of authorship, however, has serious ethical ramifications and creates methodological problems for research on RNs that requires clear authorship attribution. This article reports a study conducted to identify RN textual features that can be used to disambiguate obscured authorship, ascertain the extent of authorship evasion in RNs from two disciplinary clusters, and determine if the disciplines varied in the distributions of different types of RN authorship. Drawing on a corpus of 370 RNs archived in the Web of Science for the hard discipline of Cell Biology and the soft disciplines of Business, Finance, and Management, this study has identified 25 types of textual markers that can be used to disambiguate authorship, and revealed that only 25.68% of the RNs could be unambiguously attributed to authors of the retracted articles alone or jointly and that authorship could not be determined for 28.92% of the RNs. Furthermore, the study has found marked disciplinary differences in the different categories of RN authorship. These results point to the need for more explicit editorial requirements about RN authorship and their strict enforcement.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retraction Notices: Who Authored Them?

2018

Publications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As a matter of fact, at the time of writing this short communication, Springer, a major international publisher of scientific research, has just retracted 107 papers from the journal Tumor Biology in a single retraction notice [3], making it "a new record" [4] (p. 1). Publications can be retracted for various reasons-fortuitous research findings that cannot be replicated and editorial blunders that have resulted in duplicate publication of the same article [5,6].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Authorship of Retraction Notices: “If Names Are Not Rectified, Then Language Will Not Be in Accord with Truth.”

2017

Publications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Retraction notices appear regularly in many scholarly journals, especially top-tier journals of science and engineering. One disconcerting feature of this emergent genre is evasion of authorship, that is, the deliberate obscuring of who has authored a particular retraction notice. This communication illustrates and discusses problems of evaded authorship of retraction notices.To address these problems, it proposes that scholarly journals should require explicit authorship of retraction notices and the inclusion of core generic components such as the content to be retracted, the reason(s) for the retraction, the attribution of responsibility, and the expression of mortification.

show abstract

“…In some areas, a striking number of retracted papers originate from Asian groups. 24 One might consider helping scientifically emerging countries to develop and understand the value of a strong metrix that should be used internally before submitting manuscripts to foreign journals. In this context the temptation for fame might be strong.…”

Section: Retractions As Consequences Of Scientific Misconductmentioning

confidence: 99%

The disastrous boomerang effects of “citation mania”

Perbal¹

2017

J. Cell Commun. Signal.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The recent publication of a commentary article by Dadkhah et al. (J Cell Commun Signal 11:181-185, 2017) which addressed issues raised by the citation of questionable scientific papers in current databases and the recent retraction of manuscripts dealing with the biological properties of the CCN1 protein by Lin et al. (J Biol Chem 291(53):27433, 2016) prompted us to examine how this situation reflects an evolution of the original citation system, endangering scientific communication. We argue that the increasing number of publication retractions that have been witnessed over several years is a direct consequence of the bias created by the inconsistency of citation metrics.

show abstract

Retraction Note to multiple articles in Tumor Biology

Cited by 52 publications

References 1 publication

Retraction Notices: Who Authored Them?

Retraction Notices: Who Authored Them?

Authorship of Retraction Notices: “If Names Are Not Rectified, Then Language Will Not Be in Accord with Truth.”

The disastrous boomerang effects of “citation mania”

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About