A quantitative perspective on ethics in large team science

The gradual crowding out of singleton and small team science by large team endeavors is challenging key features of research culture. It is therefore important for the future of scientific practice to reflect upon the individual scientist's ethical responsibilities within teams. To facilitate this reflection we show labor force trends in the US revealing a skewed growth in academic ranks and increased levels of competition for promotion within the system; we analyze teaming trends across disciplines and national borders demonstrating why it is becoming difficult to distribute credit and to avoid conflicts of interest; and we use more than a century of Nobel prize data to show how science is outgrowing its old institutions of singleton awards. Of particular concern within the large team environment is the weakening of the mentor-mentee relation, which undermines the cultivation of virtue ethics across scientific generations. These trends and emerging organizational complexities call for a universal set of behavioral norms that transcend team heterogeneity and hierarchy. To this end, our expository analysis provides a survey of ethical issues in team settings to inform science ethics education and science policy.Comment: 13 pages, 5 figures, 1 table. Keywords: team ethics; team management; team evaluation; science of scienc

Retraction: the “other face” of research collaboration?

The last two decades have witnessed the rising prevalence of both co-publishing and retraction. Focusing on research collaboration, this paper utilizes a unique dataset to investigate factors contributing to retraction probability and elapsed time between publication and retraction. Data analysis reveals that the majority of retracted papers are multi-authored and that repeat offenders are collaboration prone. Yet, all things being equal, collaboration, in and of itself, does not increase the likelihood of producing flawed or fraudulent research, at least in the form of retraction. That holds for all retractions and also retractions due to falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism (FFP). The research also finds that publications with authors from elite universities are less likely to be retracted, which is particularly true for retractions due to FFP. China stands out with the fastest retracting speed compared to other countries. Possible explanations, limitations, and policy implications are also discussed

The question of quality

Phuong-Thao T. Trinh, Thu-Hien T. Le, Thu-Trang Vuong, Phuong-Hanh Hoang (2019). Chapter 6. The question of quality. In Quan-Hoang Vuong, Trung Tran (Eds.), The Vietnamese Social Sciences at a Fork in the Road (pp. 121–142). Warsaw, Poland: De Gruyter. DOI:10.2478/9783110686081-011. Online ISBN: 9783110686081 © 2019 Sciendo / De Gruyte

Retracted papers originating from paper mills: cross sectional study

OBJECTIVES To describe retracted papers originating from paper mills, including their characteristics, visibility, and impact over time, and the journals in which they were published. DESIGN Cross sectional study. SETTING The Retraction Watch database was used for identification of retracted papers from paper mills, Web of Science was used for the total number of published papers, and data from Journal Citation Reports were collected to show characteristics of journals. PARTICIPANTS All paper mill papers retracted from 1 January 2004 to 26 June 2022 were included in the study. Papers bearing an expression of concern were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Descriptive statistics were used to characterise the sample and analyse the trend of retracted paper mill papers over time, and to analyse their impact and visibility by reference to the number of citations received. RESULTS 1182 retracted paper mill papers were identified. The publication of the first paper mill paper was in 2004 and the first retraction was in 2016; by 2021, paper mill retractions accounted for 772 (21.8%) of the 3544 total retractions. Overall, retracted paper mill papers were mostly published in journals of the second highest Journal Citation Reports quartile for impact factor (n=529 (44.8%)) and listed four to six authors (n=602 (50.9%)). Of the 1182 papers, almost all listed authors of 1143 (96.8%) paper mill retractions came from Chinese institutions and 909 (76.9%) listed a hospital as a primary affiliation. 15 journals accounted for 812 (68.7%) of 1182 paper mill retractions, with one journal accounting for 166 (14.0%). Nearly all (n=1083, 93.8%) paper mill retractions had received at least one citation since publication, with a median of 11 (interquartile range 5-22) citations received. CONCLUSIONS Papers retracted originating from paper mills are increasing in frequency, posing a problem for the research community. Retracted paper mill papers most commonly originated from China and were published in a small number of journals. Nevertheless, detected paper mill papers might be substantially different from those that are not detected. New mechanisms are needed to identify and avoid this relatively new type of misconduct

Plagiarism under a Magnifying-Glass

This-paper embodies the-findings from a-small-part, of a-larger-study on-plagiarism, at-the-School of Engineering (SOE). The-study is a-cross-sectional-survey, conducted in-an-institutional-setting. 15 senior academic-members of staff (N=15), from SOE were-invited to-complete a-questionnaire. The-questioner was pre-tested, to-ensure its-validity and reliability. A trial-survey (pre-testing) was conducted, according to ISO 20252:2006 (E). The-Statistical-Package for Social-Sciences (SPSS-17, version 22)-computer software program was-used, to-compute the-Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, which demonstrated high-inter-item consistency, and, therefore, reliability (Cronbach’s a=0.803). Descriptive-statistics was-used, to-analyze, both; qualitative and quantitative-data. The-main-findings of the-study, revealed that, the-majority (60%) of the-respondents alleged, that plagiarism was-never-mentioned or explained, to-them, at-any-level; Overwhelming-majority, (90%) agreed that plagiarism is unfair to-the-original-author and to-the-colleagues; The-vast-majority, (90%) also-claimed that they never plagiarized, while 10% confessed that they-did-it one or two-times, in-the-past; majority (70%) also-agreed, that plagiarism is unfair to-oneself; and 60% agreed, it-is-unfair to-the-university. The-analysis of the-plagiarism, from the-faculty-perspective, was-balanced, by-the rigorous-coverage, of the-following-issues: Historical background; Plagiarism’ extent; Quantification, for-plagiarism; Consequences of plagiarism: Retraction of publications, with selected global-illustrative-examples; Publishing-process: main-actors and their-roles, in-dealing with-plagiarism; Combating plagiarism, including detection and punishment; and Plagiarism, as just a-tiny-fraction of scientific-misconduct; among others. This-study also-provides few-recommendations, on how to-improve the-current-situation, in-the absence of official-institutional Plagiarism-Policy. The-findings, alongside-with the-theoretical coverage, will, expectantly, make a-contribution (in its-small-way), toward the-body of knowledge, on-the subject. Keywords: retraction of publication, scientific, academic, faculty, quantification for plagiarism, questionnaire.

Misconduct policies, academic culture and career stage, not gender or pressures to publish, affect scientific integrity

The honesty and integrity of scientists is widely believed to be threatened by pressures to publish, unsupportive research environments, and other structural, sociological and psychological factors. Belief in the importance of these factors has inspired major policy initiatives, but evidence to support them is either non-existent or derived from self-reports and other sources that have known limitations. We used a retrospective study design to verify whether risk factors for scientific misconduct could predict the occurrence of retractions, which are usually the consequence of research misconduct, or corrections, which are honest rectifications of minor mistakes. Bibliographic and personal information were collected on all co-authors of papers that have been retracted or corrected in 2010-2011 (N=611 and N=2226 papers, respectively) and authors of control papers matched by journal and issue (N=1181 and N=4285 papers, respectively), and were analysed with conditional logistic regression. Results, which avoided several limitations of past studies and are robust to different sampling strategies, support the notion that scientific misconduct is more likely in countries that lack research integrity policies, in countries where individual publication performance is rewarded with cash, in cultures and situations were mutual criticism is hampered, and in the earliest phases of a researcher’s career. The hypothesis that males might be prone to scientific misconduct was not supported, and the widespread belief that pressures to publish are a major driver of misconduct was largely contradicted: high-impact and productive researchers, and those working in countries in which pressures to publish are believed to be higher, are less-likely to produce retracted papers, and more likely to correct them. Efforts to reduce and prevent misconduct, therefore, might be most effective if focused on promoting research integrity policies, improving mentoring and training, and encouraging transparent communication amongst researchers

Multiple publications: The main reason for the retraction of papers in computer science

This paper intends to review the reasons for the retraction over the last decade. The paper particularly aims at reviewing these reasons with reference to computer science field to assist authors in comprehending the style of writing. To do that, a total of thirty-six retracted papers found on the Web of Science within Jan 2007 through July 2017 are explored. Given the retraction notices which are based on ten common reasons, this paper classifies the two main categories, namely random and nonrandom retraction. Retraction due to the duplication of publications scored the highest proportion of all other reasons reviewed