ArticleScience and engineering ethics2018
Lack of Improvement in Scientific Integrity: An Analysis of WoS Retractions by Chinese Researchers (1997-2016).
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fake publications in biomedical science: red-flagging method indicates mass production.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Retracted articles in scientific literature: A bibliometric analysis from 2003 to 2022 using the Web of Science.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Cross-cultural differences in retracted publications of male and female from a global perspective.Scientometrics · 2023Article
- Awareness and knowledge of manuscript writing and research integrity: A cross sectional survey among graduate students.Heliyon · 2022Article
- Comprehensive analysis of retracted journal articles in the field of veterinary medicine and animal health.BMC veterinary research · 2022Article
- Is academic writing becoming more positive? A large-scale diachronic case study of Science research articles across 25 years.Scientometrics · 2022Article
- Retractions, Fake Peer Reviews, and Paper Mills.Journal of Korean medical science · 2021Article
- Research ethics: a profile of retractions from world class universities.Scientometrics · 2021Article
- Retracted articles in the biomedical literature from Indian authors.Scientometrics · 2021Article
- Plagiarism, Fake Peer-Review, and Duplication: Predominant Reasons Underlying Retractions of Iran-Affiliated Scientific Papers.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Retraction: The "Other Face" of Research Collaboration?Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Plagiarism as Reported by Participants Completing the AuthorAID MOOC on Research Writing.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Retracted Publications in the Biomedical Literature from Open Access Journals.Science and engineering ethics · 2019Article
- Fake Peer Review and Inappropriate Authorship Are Real Evils.Journal of Korean medical science · 2019Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study investigated the status quo of article retractions by Chinese researchers. The bibliometric information of 834 retractions from the Web of Science SCI-expanded database were downloaded and analysed. The results showed that the number of retractions increased in the past two decades, and misconduct such as plagiarism, fraud, and faked peer review explained approximately three quarters of the retractions. Meanwhile, a large proportion of the retractions seemed typical of deliberate fraud, which might be evidenced by retractions authored by repeat offenders of data fraud and those due to faked peer review. In addition, a majority of Chinese fraudulent authors seemed to aim their articles which contained a possible misconduct at low-impact journals, regardless of the types of misconduct. The system of scientific evaluation, the "publish or perish" pressure Chinese researchers are facing, and the relatively low costs of scientific integrity may be responsible for the scientific integrity. We suggested more integrity education and severe sanctions for the policy-makers, as well as change in the peer review system and transparent retraction notices for journal administrators.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28889329What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.