Analysis and Implications of Retraction Period and Coauthorship of Fraudulent Publications

Accountability in Research

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 198-210

  Foo, Jong Yong Abdiel ^a   Tan, Xin Ji Alan ^a  

^a DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRONICS AND COMPUTER ENGINEERING   (Singapore)

Author keywords

coauthor's responsibility; ethical practices; fabricated data; honorary authorship; research misconduct; retraction period

Indexed keywords

EPIDEMIOLOGY; ETHICS; HUMAN; MALE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PROCEDURES; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; UNITED STATES; WRITING;

AUTHORSHIP; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; HUMANS; LINEAR MODELS; MALE; PUBLICATIONS; RETRACTION OF PUBLICATION AS TOPIC; SAMPLING STUDIES; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84890410143     PISSN: 08989621     EISSN: 15455815     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2013.848799     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Dyck, M. J. 2013. Misused honorary authorship is no excuse for quantifying the unquantifiable. Journal of Medical Ethics, 39: 514
2. Editorial. 2008. The role and responsibilities of coauthors. Lancet, 372: 778
3. Editorial. 2009. Authorship policies. Nature, 458: 1078
4. Editorial. 2010. Publish or perish. Nature, 467: 252
5. Fanelli, D. 2010. Do pressures to publish increase scientists' bias? An empirical support from US States Data. PLoS One, 5: e10271
6. Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G. and Casadevall, A. 2012. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 109: 17028 - 17033.
7. Foo, J. Y. 2011. A retrospective analysis of the trend of retracted publications in the field of biomedical and life sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17: 459 - 468.
8. Foo, J. Y. and Wilson, S. J. 2012. An analysis on the research ethics cases managed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) between 1997 and 2010. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18: 621 - 631.
9. Greenland, P. and Fontanarosa, P. B. 2012. Ending honorary authorship. Science, 337: 1019
10. Kakuk, P. 2009. The legacy of the Hwang case: Research misconduct in biosciences. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15: 545 - 562.
11. Masic, I. 2012. Ethical aspects and dilemmas of preparing, writing and publishing of the scientific papers in the biomedical journals. Acta Informatica Medica, 20: 141 - 148.
12. Reich, E. S. 2009. The rise and fall of a physics fraudster. PhysicsWorld, 22: 24 - 29.
13. Sox, H.C. and Rennie, D. 2006. Research misconduct, retraction, and cleansing the medical literature: Lessons from the Poehlman case. Annals of Internal Medicine, 144: 609 - 613.
14. Steen, R. G. 2011. Retractions in the scientific literature: Do authors deliberately commit research fraud?. Journal of Medical Ethics, 37: 113 - 117.
15. Trikalinos, N. A., Evangelou, E. and Ioannidis, J. P. 2008. Falsified papers in high-impact journals were slow to retract and indistinguishable from nonfraudulent papers. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61: 464 - 470.
16. Van Noorden, R. 2011. Science publishing: The trouble with retractions. Nature, 478: 26 - 28.
17. Vaughan, L. and Shaw, D. 2008. A new look at evidence of scholarly citations in citation indexes and from web sources. Scientometrics, 74: 317 - 330.
18. Wager, E. and Williams, P. 2011. Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988-2008. Journal of Medical Ethics, 37: 567 - 570.
19. White, P. F., Rosow, C. E. and Shafer, S. L. 2011. Editorial Board of Anesthesia & Analgesia. The Scott Reuben saga: One last retraction. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 345, 112: 512 - 515.