Amend:An integrated platform of retracted papers and concerned papers

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.

A comparative study on characteristics of retracted publications across different open access levels

Purpose:Recently,global science has shown an increasing open trend,however,the characteristics of research integrity of open access(OA)publications have rarely been studied.The aim of this study is to compare the characteristics of retracted articles across different OA levels and discover whether OA level influences the characteristics of retracted articles.Design/methodology/approach:The research conducted an analysis of 6,005 retracted publications between 2001 and 2020 from the Web of Science and Retraction Watch databases.These publications were categorized based on their OA levels,including Gold OA,Green OA,and non-OA.The study explored retraction rates,time lags and reasons within these categories.Findings:The findings of this research revealed distinct patterns in retraction rates among different OA levels.Publications with Gold OA demonstrated the highest retraction rate,followed by Green OA and non-OA.A comparison of retraction reasons between Gold OA and non-OA categories indicated similar proportions,while Green OA exhibited a higher proportion due to falsification and manipulation issues,along with a lower occurrence of plagiarism and authorship issues.The retraction time lag was shortest for Gold OA,followed by non-OA,and longest for Green OA.The prolonged retraction time for Green OA could be attributed to an atypical distribution of retraction reasons.A comparative study on characteristics of retracted publications across different open access levels Research limitations:There is no exploration of a wider range of OA levels,such as Hybrid OA and Bronze OA.Practical implications:The outcomes of this study suggest the need for increased attention to research integrity within the OA publications.The occurrences offalsification,manipulation,and ethical concerns within Green OA publications warrant attention from the scientific community.Originality/value:This study contributes to the understanding of research integrity in the realm of OA publications,shedding light on retraction patterns and reasons across different OA levels.