Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
126 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
47 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Two Decades of Scientific Misconduct in India: Retraction Reasons and Journal Quality among Inter-country and Intra-country Institutional Collaboration (2404.15306v1)

Published 29 Mar 2024 in cs.DL

Abstract: Research stands as a pivotal factor in propelling the progress of any nation forward. However, if tainted by misconduct, it poses a significant threat to the nation's development. This study aims to scrutinize various cases of deliberate scientific misconduct by Indian researchers. A comprehensive analysis was conducted on 3,244 retracted publications sourced from the Retraction Watch database. The upward trend in retractions is alarming, although the decreasing duration of retractions indicates proactive measures by journals against misconduct. Approximately 60% of retractions stem from private institutions, with fake peer reviews identified as the primary cause of misconduct. This trend could be attributed to incentivizing publication quantity over quality in private institutions, potentially fostering unfair publishing practices. Retractions due to data integrity issues are predominantly observed in public and medical institutions, while retractions due to plagiarism occur in conference proceedings and non-Scopus-indexed journals. Examining retractions resulting from institutional collaborations reveals that 80% originate from within the country, with the remaining 20% being international collaborations. Among inter-country collaborations, one-third of retractions come from the top two journal quartiles, whereas, in intra-country collaborations, half of the retractions stem from Q1 and Q2 journals. Clinical studies retracted from intra-country collaborations are mostly from Q3 and Q4 journals, whereas in inter-country collaborations, they primarily come from Q1 journals. Regarding top journals by the number of retractions in intra-country collaborations, they belong to the Q2 and Q4 categories, whereas in inter-country collaborations, they are in Q1.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (39)
  1. Quartile scores of scientific journals: Meaning, importance and usage. Acta Medica Alanya 4, 102–108.
  2. Duplicate or redundant publication: can we afford it? Revista Española de Cardiología (English Edition) 58, 601–604.
  3. Temporal characteristics of retracted articles. Scientometrics 116, 1771–1783.
  4. Improving peer review in scholarly journals. European Science Editing 37, 41–43.
  5. Misconduct as the main cause for retraction. a descriptive study of retracted publications and their authors. Gaceta sanitaria 33, 356–360.
  6. A policy statement on “dissemination and evaluation of research output in india” by the indian national science academy (new delhi) .
  7. Plagiarism and data falsification are the most common reasons for retracted publications in obstetrics and gynaecology. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 126, 1134–1140.
  8. Causal factors implicated in research misconduct: Evidence from ori case files. Science and engineering ethics 13, 395–414.
  9. Publication misconduct among medical professionals in india. Indian J Med Ethics 11, 104–107.
  10. Retracted articles in the biomedical literature from indian authors. Scientometrics 126, 3965–3981.
  11. Analysis of retractions in indian science. Scientometrics 119, 1081–1094.
  12. Fate of articles that warranted retraction due to ethical concerns: a descriptive cross-sectional study. PLoS one 9, e85846.
  13. Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign. PLoS medicine 10, e1001563.
  14. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, 17028–17033.
  15. The peer-review scam. Nature 515, 480.
  16. Plagiarism in research. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 18, 91–101.
  17. Crossref acquires retraction watch data and opens it for the scientific communit. URL: https://www.crossref.org/blog/news-crossref-and-retraction-watch/.
  18. A review of the literature on ethical issues related to scientific authorship. Accountability in Research 27, 284–324.
  19. Unraveling retraction dynamics in covid-19 research: Patterns, reasons, and implications. arXiv/5497638 .
  20. Cope’s retraction guidelines. The Lancet 374, 1876–1877.
  21. Perspective: Research misconduct: The search for a remedy. Academic Medicine 87, 877–882.
  22. Publish or perish: The myth and reality of academic publishing. Language teaching 47, 250–261.
  23. The retraction penalty: Evidence from the web of science. Scientific reports 3, 3146.
  24. Costly collaborations: The impact of scientific fraud on co-authors’ careers. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67, 535–542.
  25. Retractions in india since independence: a multifaceted analysis for 75 years through data carpentry .
  26. Ethical publishing: how do we get there? Philosophy, Theory, and Practice in Biology 14, 15.
  27. Publish or perish: Where are we heading? Journal of research in medical sciences: the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences 19, 87.
  28. David versus goliath: Early career researchers in an unethical publishing system. Ecology Letters 27, e14395.
  29. Scientific misconduct: A perspective from india. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 18, 177–184.
  30. Historicizing the crisis of scientific misconduct in indian science. History of Science 58, 485–506.
  31. Team size and retracted citations reveal the patterns of retractions from 1981 to 2020. Scientometrics 126, 8363–8374.
  32. The ripple effect of retraction on an author’s collaboration network. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.05941 .
  33. A systematic review of retractions in biomedical research publications: reasons for retractions and their citations in indian affiliations. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 10, 1–12.
  34. Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing? Journal of medical ethics 37, 249–253.
  35. Retraction: the “other face” of research collaboration? Science and Engineering Ethics 26, 1681–1708.
  36. Characteristics of retracted articles based on retraction data from online sources through february 2019. Science Editing 7, 34–44.
  37. Retractions: guidance from the committee on publication ethics (cope). Maturitas 64, 201–203.
  38. Springer-bmc retracting nearly 60 papers for fake reviews and other issues.
  39. A cross-disciplinary and severity-based study of author-related reasons for retraction. Accountability in Research 29, 512–536.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now