Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications
By F. Fang, R. Steen, A. Casadevall. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2012
1,149 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Health Informatics, Safety Research
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d5f4f5b1e55ad0acae05df6d8878ca7af354bf21
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Health Informatics
In Safety Research
Citations in the corpus
- The Career Effects of Scandal: Evidence from Scientific Retractions (2017, neutral): “, Wade 2010; Van Noorden 2011), and much hand-wringing within the scientific community (Fang et al. 2012), but its fundamental drivers remain an open question.”
- What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017, background): “Reviewers often fail to detect major methodological failings (Schroter et al., 2004), with eminent journals (whose higher rejection rates might suggest more stringent peer review processes) seeming to perform no better than others (Fang et al., 2012).”
- Academic misconduct, misrepresentation and gaming: A reassessment (2019, background): “This pressure to game the system seems to have grown with demands for proof of impact stemming from the proliferation of research assessment exercises (Fang et al. 2012; Martin, 2013).”
- The science of science: from the perspective of complex systems (2017, background): “studied a relatively large number of retracted papers in PubMed, finding that the number of retracted papers increases over time [348].”
- Linguistic Obfuscation in Fraudulent Science (2016, background): “Fang et al. (2012) estimate that approximately .007% of published research papers are retracted because of fraud or suspected fraud, suggesting that the papers in the unretracted corpus are unlikely to be fraudulent.”
- Excellence or quality? Impact of the current competition regime on science and scientific publishing in Latin America and its implications for development (2014, background): “Finally, those who compete without owning what it takes to win may even seek unacceptable shortcuts: currently, cheating and plagiarizing are on the rise and a recent study disquietingly suggests that the higher the impact factor of a journal, the larger the number of tainted articles that have to b”
- Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories (2019, background): “Although articles retracted due to fraud represent a very small percentage of the overall scientific literature, the problem may be increasing (Fang et al., 2012).”