Purpose: The number of retracted papers from Chinese university-affiliated hospitals is increasing, which has raised much concern. The aim of this study is to analyze the retracted papers from university-affiliated ho...Purpose: The number of retracted papers from Chinese university-affiliated hospitals is increasing, which has raised much concern. The aim of this study is to analyze the retracted papers from university-affiliated hospitals in China’s mainland from 2000 to 2021. Design/methodology/approach: Data for 1,031 retracted papers were identified from the Web of Science Core collection database. The information of the hospitals involved was obtained from their official websites. We analyzed the chronological changes, journal distribution, discipline distribution and retraction reasons for the retracted papers. The grade and geographic locations of the hospitals involved were explored as well.Findings: We found a rapid increase in the number of retracted papers, while the retraction time interval is decreasing. The main reasons for retraction are plagiarism/self-plagiarism(n=255), invalid data/images/conclusions(n=212), fake peer review(n=175) and honesty error(n=163). The disciplines are mainly distributed in oncology(n=320), pharmacology & pharmacy(n=198) and research & experimental medicine(n=166). About 43.8% of the retracted papers were from hospitals affiliated with prestigious universities. Research limitations: This study fails to differentiate between retractions due to honest error and retractions due to research misconduct. We believe that there is a fundamental difference between honest error retractions and misconduct retractions. Another limitation is that authors of the retracted papers have not been analyzed in this study.Practical implications: This study provides a reference for addressing research misconduct in Chinese university-affiliated hospitals. It is our recommendation that universities and hospitals should educate all their staff about the basic norms of research integrity, punish authors of scientific misconduct retracted papers, and reform the unreasonable evaluation system.Originality/value: Based on the analysis of retracted papers, this study further analyzes the characteristics of institutions of retracted papers, which may deepen the research on retracted papers and provide a new perspective to understand the retraction phenomenon.展开更多
Recently, the editorial office received a requisition from one of the co-corresponding authors of an article published in Zoological Research in 2003. This researcher claimed he was not informed that he was listed as ...Recently, the editorial office received a requisition from one of the co-corresponding authors of an article published in Zoological Research in 2003. This researcher claimed he was not informed that he was listed as an author during the entire manuscript submission and publication process. Moreover, he had a concern about the reliability of the data in the paper. Therefore, he would like to withdraw his authorship of this particular article or withdraw this article entirely. The editorial office forwarded the letter to the other authors to collect comments, and the first author completely denied the co-corresponding author's claim of unawareness of authorship by providing archived emails between them. Setting aside what really happened 13 years ago, in this case, it may be interpreted that either this cocorresponding author himself is announcing his honorary authorship (either by passively being added to the byline or actively accepting the offer) in this article, or is trying to avoid taking (potential) responsibility regarding the research content by using honorary authorship as a defense. Meanwhile, the first author has been accused of offering honorary authorship to a senior researcher.展开更多
In recent years,academic misconduct has been frequently exposed by the media,with serious impacts on the academic community.Current research on academic misconduct focuses mainly on detecting plagiarism in article con...In recent years,academic misconduct has been frequently exposed by the media,with serious impacts on the academic community.Current research on academic misconduct focuses mainly on detecting plagiarism in article content through the application of character-based and non-text element detection techniques over the entirety of a manuscript.For the most part,these techniques can only detect cases of textual plagiarism,which means that potential culprits can easily avoid discovery through clever editing and alterations of text content.In this paper,we propose an academic misconduct detection method based on scholars’submission behaviors.The model can effectively capture the atypical behavioral approach and operation of the author.As such,it is able to detect various types of misconduct,thereby improving the accuracy of detection when combined with a text content analysis.The model learns by forming a dual network group that processes text features and user behavior features to detect potential academic misconduct.First,the effect of scholars’behavioral features on the model are considered and analyzed.Second,the Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique(SMOTE)is applied to address the problem of imbalanced samples of positive and negative classes among contributing scholars.Finally,the text features of the papers are combined with the scholars’behavioral data to improve recognition precision.Experimental results on the imbalanced dataset demonstrate that our model has a highly satisfactory performance in terms of accuracy and recall.展开更多
DEAR EDITOR: We read the publication by Liu (2016) on authorship misconduct with a great interest. In fact, the authorship misconduct is no uncommon and has to be managed, Liu (2016) noted that "Proper authorshi...DEAR EDITOR: We read the publication by Liu (2016) on authorship misconduct with a great interest. In fact, the authorship misconduct is no uncommon and has to be managed, Liu (2016) noted that "Proper authorship embodies honesty, integrity, fairness and transparency, which surely are the very essence of any scientific pursuit." Due to the present requirement on academic publication to support academic rank, several forms of authorship misconduct can be seen. Of interest,展开更多
Unethical behavior among university students such as cheating and plagiarism has weakened the character of honesty in education. This fact has challenged those who perceived education as a holistic process of internal...Unethical behavior among university students such as cheating and plagiarism has weakened the character of honesty in education. This fact has challenged those who perceived education as a holistic process of internalizing values and norms that lead to the formation of students' moral principles and moral behaviour. Educators have played the role of ensuring the students to internalize and realized moral values and norms. A study of 360 students of the second semester who enrolled at the course of "ethical and personal development" at Atma Jaya Catholic University in Indonesia showed that unethical behavior such as cheating and plagiarism were rarely done. However, a deep look at the reason the students did academic dishonesty has prompted the permissiveness of student's moral life. This study proves that academic integrity among university students is worrisome, and it is worsened by the fact that they were enrolled in the course of "ethical and personal development". Seriously taking into consideration the strong desire of students to change the culture of academic misconduct, the authors argue that an educational model which is not oriented excessively to cognitive performance is needed. The authors argue that this position has to be practiced in line with the involvement of "clean" students who are involved as role models in influencing the formation of student awareness and ethical behavior.展开更多
Our research focuses on detecting financial reporting misconduct and derives acomprehensive misconduct sample using AAERs and intentional restatements.We develop a novel ensemble learning method, Multi-LightGBM, for h...Our research focuses on detecting financial reporting misconduct and derives acomprehensive misconduct sample using AAERs and intentional restatements.We develop a novel ensemble learning method, Multi-LightGBM, for highlyimbalanced classification learning. We adopt a human-machine cooperationfeature selection method, which can mitigate the limitation of incompletetheories, enhance the model performance, and guide researchers to develop newtheories. We propose a cost-based measure, expected benefits of classification,to evaluate the economic performance of a model. The out-of-sample testsshow that Multi-LightGBM, coupled with the features we selected, outperformsother predictive models. The finding that introducing intentional materialrestatements into our predictive model does not reduce the effectiveness ofcapturing AAERs has important implications for research on AAERsdetection. Moreover, we can identify more misconduct firms with fewerresources by the misconduct sample relative to the standalone AAERs sample,which is quite beneficial for most model users.展开更多
Purpose:The notable increase in retraction papers has attracted considerable attention from diverse stakeholders.Various sources are now offering information related to research integrity,including concerns voiced on ...Purpose:The notable increase in retraction papers has attracted considerable attention from diverse stakeholders.Various sources are now offering information related to research integrity,including concerns voiced on social media,disclosed lists of paper mills,and retraction notices accessible through journal websites.However,despite the availability of such resources,there remains a lack of a unified platform to consolidate this information,thereby hindering efficient searching and cross-referencing.Thus,it is imperative to develop a comprehensive platform for retracted papers and related concerns.This article aims to introduce“Amend,”a platform designed to integrate information on research integrity from diverse sources.Design/methodology/approach:The Amend platform consolidates concerns and lists of problematic articles sourced from social media platforms(e.g.,PubPeer,For Better Science),retraction notices from journal websites,and citation databases(e.g.,Web of Science,CrossRef).Moreover,Amend includes investigation and punishment announcements released by administrative agencies(e.g.,NSFC,MOE,MOST,CAS).Each related paper is marked and can be traced back to its information source via a provided link.Furthermore,the Amend database incorporates various attributes of retracted articles,including citation topics,funding details,open access status,and more.The reasons for retraction are identified and classified as either academic misconduct or honest errors,with detailed subcategories provided for further clarity.Findings:Within the Amend platform,a total of 32,515 retracted papers indexed in SCI,SSCI,and ESCI between 1980 and 2023 were identified.Of these,26,620(81.87%)were associated with academic misconduct.The retraction rate stands at 6.64 per 10,000 articles.Notably,the retraction rate for non-gold open access articles significantly differs from that for gold open access articles,with this disparity progressively widening over the years.Furthermore,the reasons for retractions have shifted from traditional individual behaviors like falsification,fabrication,plagiarism,and duplication to more organized large-scale fraudulent practices,including Paper Mills,Fake Peer-review,and Artificial Intelligence Generated Content(AIGC).Research limitations:The Amend platform may not fully capture all retracted and concerning papers,thereby impacting its comprehensiveness.Additionally,inaccuracies in retraction notices may lead to errors in tagged reasons.Practical implications:Amend provides an integrated platform for stakeholders to enhance monitoring,analysis,and research on academic misconduct issues.Ultimately,the Amend database can contribute to upholding scientific integrity.Originality/value:This study introduces a globally integrated platform for retracted and concerning papers,along with a preliminary analysis of the evolutionary trends in retracted papers.展开更多
基金supported by grants from Humanity and Social Science Youth Foundation of Ministry of Education of China (21YJC870016).
文摘Purpose: The number of retracted papers from Chinese university-affiliated hospitals is increasing, which has raised much concern. The aim of this study is to analyze the retracted papers from university-affiliated hospitals in China’s mainland from 2000 to 2021. Design/methodology/approach: Data for 1,031 retracted papers were identified from the Web of Science Core collection database. The information of the hospitals involved was obtained from their official websites. We analyzed the chronological changes, journal distribution, discipline distribution and retraction reasons for the retracted papers. The grade and geographic locations of the hospitals involved were explored as well.Findings: We found a rapid increase in the number of retracted papers, while the retraction time interval is decreasing. The main reasons for retraction are plagiarism/self-plagiarism(n=255), invalid data/images/conclusions(n=212), fake peer review(n=175) and honesty error(n=163). The disciplines are mainly distributed in oncology(n=320), pharmacology & pharmacy(n=198) and research & experimental medicine(n=166). About 43.8% of the retracted papers were from hospitals affiliated with prestigious universities. Research limitations: This study fails to differentiate between retractions due to honest error and retractions due to research misconduct. We believe that there is a fundamental difference between honest error retractions and misconduct retractions. Another limitation is that authors of the retracted papers have not been analyzed in this study.Practical implications: This study provides a reference for addressing research misconduct in Chinese university-affiliated hospitals. It is our recommendation that universities and hospitals should educate all their staff about the basic norms of research integrity, punish authors of scientific misconduct retracted papers, and reform the unreasonable evaluation system.Originality/value: Based on the analysis of retracted papers, this study further analyzes the characteristics of institutions of retracted papers, which may deepen the research on retracted papers and provide a new perspective to understand the retraction phenomenon.
文摘Recently, the editorial office received a requisition from one of the co-corresponding authors of an article published in Zoological Research in 2003. This researcher claimed he was not informed that he was listed as an author during the entire manuscript submission and publication process. Moreover, he had a concern about the reliability of the data in the paper. Therefore, he would like to withdraw his authorship of this particular article or withdraw this article entirely. The editorial office forwarded the letter to the other authors to collect comments, and the first author completely denied the co-corresponding author's claim of unawareness of authorship by providing archived emails between them. Setting aside what really happened 13 years ago, in this case, it may be interpreted that either this cocorresponding author himself is announcing his honorary authorship (either by passively being added to the byline or actively accepting the offer) in this article, or is trying to avoid taking (potential) responsibility regarding the research content by using honorary authorship as a defense. Meanwhile, the first author has been accused of offering honorary authorship to a senior researcher.
基金This work is supported by the National Key R&D Program of China under grant 2018YFB1003205by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grants U1836208 and U1836110+1 种基金by the Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions(PAPD)fundand by the Collaborative Innovation Center of Atmospheric Environment and Equipment Technology(CICAEET)fund,China.
文摘In recent years,academic misconduct has been frequently exposed by the media,with serious impacts on the academic community.Current research on academic misconduct focuses mainly on detecting plagiarism in article content through the application of character-based and non-text element detection techniques over the entirety of a manuscript.For the most part,these techniques can only detect cases of textual plagiarism,which means that potential culprits can easily avoid discovery through clever editing and alterations of text content.In this paper,we propose an academic misconduct detection method based on scholars’submission behaviors.The model can effectively capture the atypical behavioral approach and operation of the author.As such,it is able to detect various types of misconduct,thereby improving the accuracy of detection when combined with a text content analysis.The model learns by forming a dual network group that processes text features and user behavior features to detect potential academic misconduct.First,the effect of scholars’behavioral features on the model are considered and analyzed.Second,the Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique(SMOTE)is applied to address the problem of imbalanced samples of positive and negative classes among contributing scholars.Finally,the text features of the papers are combined with the scholars’behavioral data to improve recognition precision.Experimental results on the imbalanced dataset demonstrate that our model has a highly satisfactory performance in terms of accuracy and recall.
文摘DEAR EDITOR: We read the publication by Liu (2016) on authorship misconduct with a great interest. In fact, the authorship misconduct is no uncommon and has to be managed, Liu (2016) noted that "Proper authorship embodies honesty, integrity, fairness and transparency, which surely are the very essence of any scientific pursuit." Due to the present requirement on academic publication to support academic rank, several forms of authorship misconduct can be seen. Of interest,
文摘Unethical behavior among university students such as cheating and plagiarism has weakened the character of honesty in education. This fact has challenged those who perceived education as a holistic process of internalizing values and norms that lead to the formation of students' moral principles and moral behaviour. Educators have played the role of ensuring the students to internalize and realized moral values and norms. A study of 360 students of the second semester who enrolled at the course of "ethical and personal development" at Atma Jaya Catholic University in Indonesia showed that unethical behavior such as cheating and plagiarism were rarely done. However, a deep look at the reason the students did academic dishonesty has prompted the permissiveness of student's moral life. This study proves that academic integrity among university students is worrisome, and it is worsened by the fact that they were enrolled in the course of "ethical and personal development". Seriously taking into consideration the strong desire of students to change the culture of academic misconduct, the authors argue that an educational model which is not oriented excessively to cognitive performance is needed. The authors argue that this position has to be practiced in line with the involvement of "clean" students who are involved as role models in influencing the formation of student awareness and ethical behavior.
基金National Natural Science Foundation of China under[grant numbers 72071038,72121001].
文摘Our research focuses on detecting financial reporting misconduct and derives acomprehensive misconduct sample using AAERs and intentional restatements.We develop a novel ensemble learning method, Multi-LightGBM, for highlyimbalanced classification learning. We adopt a human-machine cooperationfeature selection method, which can mitigate the limitation of incompletetheories, enhance the model performance, and guide researchers to develop newtheories. We propose a cost-based measure, expected benefits of classification,to evaluate the economic performance of a model. The out-of-sample testsshow that Multi-LightGBM, coupled with the features we selected, outperformsother predictive models. The finding that introducing intentional materialrestatements into our predictive model does not reduce the effectiveness ofcapturing AAERs has important implications for research on AAERsdetection. Moreover, we can identify more misconduct firms with fewerresources by the misconduct sample relative to the standalone AAERs sample,which is quite beneficial for most model users.
基金NSFC(No.71974017)LIS Outstanding Talents Introducing Program,Bureau of Development and Planning of CAS(2022).
文摘Purpose:The notable increase in retraction papers has attracted considerable attention from diverse stakeholders.Various sources are now offering information related to research integrity,including concerns voiced on social media,disclosed lists of paper mills,and retraction notices accessible through journal websites.However,despite the availability of such resources,there remains a lack of a unified platform to consolidate this information,thereby hindering efficient searching and cross-referencing.Thus,it is imperative to develop a comprehensive platform for retracted papers and related concerns.This article aims to introduce“Amend,”a platform designed to integrate information on research integrity from diverse sources.Design/methodology/approach:The Amend platform consolidates concerns and lists of problematic articles sourced from social media platforms(e.g.,PubPeer,For Better Science),retraction notices from journal websites,and citation databases(e.g.,Web of Science,CrossRef).Moreover,Amend includes investigation and punishment announcements released by administrative agencies(e.g.,NSFC,MOE,MOST,CAS).Each related paper is marked and can be traced back to its information source via a provided link.Furthermore,the Amend database incorporates various attributes of retracted articles,including citation topics,funding details,open access status,and more.The reasons for retraction are identified and classified as either academic misconduct or honest errors,with detailed subcategories provided for further clarity.Findings:Within the Amend platform,a total of 32,515 retracted papers indexed in SCI,SSCI,and ESCI between 1980 and 2023 were identified.Of these,26,620(81.87%)were associated with academic misconduct.The retraction rate stands at 6.64 per 10,000 articles.Notably,the retraction rate for non-gold open access articles significantly differs from that for gold open access articles,with this disparity progressively widening over the years.Furthermore,the reasons for retractions have shifted from traditional individual behaviors like falsification,fabrication,plagiarism,and duplication to more organized large-scale fraudulent practices,including Paper Mills,Fake Peer-review,and Artificial Intelligence Generated Content(AIGC).Research limitations:The Amend platform may not fully capture all retracted and concerning papers,thereby impacting its comprehensiveness.Additionally,inaccuracies in retraction notices may lead to errors in tagged reasons.Practical implications:Amend provides an integrated platform for stakeholders to enhance monitoring,analysis,and research on academic misconduct issues.Ultimately,the Amend database can contribute to upholding scientific integrity.Originality/value:This study introduces a globally integrated platform for retracted and concerning papers,along with a preliminary analysis of the evolutionary trends in retracted papers.