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.

Qualitycontrol of research data during thepandemic:A case study of retracted COVID-19 papers

The utilization of research papers has been crucial in facilitating pandemic decision-making and management.Despite the unprecedented surge of scientific publications in response to the COVID-19 outbreak,the retraction of papers related to data has been increasingly frequent,indicating shortcomings in the quality control of current research data.In this study,we aim to examine the root causes and characteristics of data-related retractions amidst the deluge of pandemic research papers,with a particular focus on articles that contain flaws stemming from issues related to research data quality.Our findings suggest that retractions related to data quality deficiencies indicate a dearth of actors and mechanisms within the research quality management landscape.The monitoring and control of data quality cannot be left solely to the self-regulation of the academic community.Hence,our study proposes recommendations for ensuring research data quality in pandemic publications from three perspectives:the management of scientific research quality,data sharing and evaluation mechanisms;publication and dissemination scrutiny mechanisms;and academic early warning and tolerance mechanisms.

Ethical publishing in intensive care medicine:A narrative review

Ethical standards in the context of scientific publications are increasingly gaining attention. A narrative review of the literature concerning publication ethics wasconducted as found in Pub Med, Google Scholar, relevant news articles, position papers, websites and other sources. The Committee on Publication Ethics has produced guidelines and schedules for the handling of problem situations that have been adopted by professional journals and publishers worldwide as guidelines to authors. The defined requirements go beyond the disclosure of conflicts of interest or the prior registration of clinical trials. Recommendations to authors, editors and publishers of journals and research institutions were formulated with regard to issues of authorship, double publications, plagiarism, and conflicts of interest, with special attention being paid to unethical research behavior and data falsification. This narrative review focusses on ethical publishing in intensive care medicine. As scientific misconduct with data falsification damage patients and society, especially if fraudulent studies are considered important or favor certain therapies and downplay their side effects, it is important to ensure that only studies are published that have been carried out with highest integrity according to predefined criteria. For that also the peer review process has to be conducted in accordance with the highest possible scientific standards and making use of available modern information technology. The review provides the current state of recommendations that are considered to be most relevant particularly in the field of intensive care medicine.

On Kripke＇s Dogmatism Paradox： A Logical Dynamical Analysis

As a byproduct of solving the surprise-exam paradox, Saul Kripke formulates a ＂dogmatism paradox＂ which seems to show that knowledge entails dogmatism. In this paper, the author analyzes the nature of the dogmatism paradox from a logical dynamical perspective. The author suggests that the dogmatism paradox is better understood as a paradox of knowledge attribution rather than of knowledge. Therefore, the dogmatism paradox could be solved without sacrificing the principle of epistemic closure. Based on a famous version of relevant alternatives theory, the author formalizes a logic of knowledge attribution in the style of logical dynamics, namely, public retraction logic, and analyzes how knowledge attributions are retracted with the expansion of relevant altematives.