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

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.

Analysis of Retracted Articles in the Field of Immunology: A Scientometric Study

Introduction: The volume of retracted articles in all fields has increased significantly in recent years. Retracted publications in the medical field may endanger patients' health and cause disturbances in specialists' decisions. Immunology is one of the crucial branches of medicine, so this study is conducted to investigate the reasons for retraction and analyze retracted articles on immunology. Methods: This scientometric study was done in 2023 on the retracted articles of immunology. The data were obtained from the Web of Science database and were analyzed by R4.2.2, Biblioshiny software, Also, the Retraction Watch database has been used to identify the reasons for retractions. Results: The findings showed that the retracted immunology articles have increased significantly in recent years. From the 240 retracted immunology publications available in the WoS database, the most significant number of retracted articles were published by "Journal of Immunology" and "UNIV TEXAS" among institutions. The USA contributed the most to producing such articles. The most keywords of retracted articles were expression and activation. Seventy-two immunology journals have published retracted papers on the WoS; most of these were in quartile two journals. The main reason for retracting articles was "Investigation by Company/Institution." Conclusion: Reviewing the reasons for retracting articles gives editors and editorial boards of journals, authors, and experts' essential information to avoid similar cases. Research ethics guidelines help researchers in producing and publishing authentic articles, so it is recommended that authors be aware of the contents of ethical guidelines

Expert Recommended Biomedical Journal Articles: Their Retractions or Corrections, and Post-retraction Citing

Faculty Opinions has provided recommendations of important biomedical publications by domain experts (FMs) since 2001. The purpose of this study is two-fold: 1) identify the characteristics of the expert-recommended articles that were subsequently retracted; 2) investigate what happened after retraction. We examined a set of 232 recommended, later retracted or corrected articles. These articles were classified as New Finding (43%), Interesting Hypothesis (16%), etc. More than 71% of the articles acknowledged funding support; the NIH (US) was a top funder (64%). The top reasons for retractions were Errors of various types (28%); Falsification/fabrication of data, image, or results (20%); Unreliable data, image, or results (16%); and Results not reproducible (16%). Retractions took from less than two months to almost 14 years. Only 15 % of recommendations were withdrawn either after dissents were made by other FMs or after retractions. Most of the retracted articles continue to be cited post-retraction, especially those published in Nature, Science, and Cell. Significant positive correlations were observed between post-retraction citations and pre-retraction citations, between post-retraction citations and peak citations, and between post-retraction citations and the post-retraction citing span. A significant negative correlation was also observed between the post-retraction citing span and years taken to reach peak citations. Literature recommendation systems need to update the changing status of the recommended articles in a timely manner; invite the recommending experts to update their recommendations; and provide a personalized mechanism to alert users who have accessed the recommended articles on their subsequent retractions, concerns, or corrections

Impact Factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification?

A review of Garfield's journal impact factor and its specific implementation as the Thomson Reuters Impact Factor reveals several weaknesses in this commonly-used indicator of journal standing. Key limitations include the mismatch between citing and cited documents, the deceptive display of three decimals that belies the real precision, and the absence of confidence intervals. These are minor issues that are easily amended and should be corrected, but more substantive improvements are needed. There are indications that the scientific community seeks and needs better certification of journal procedures to improve the quality of published science. Comprehensive certification of editorial and review procedures could help ensure adequate procedures to detect duplicate and fraudulent submissions.Comment: 25 pages, 12 figures, 6 table