Pathological publishing: A new psychological disorder with legal consequences?

European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 91-97

  Buela Casal, Gualberto ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRANADA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Legal and ethical consequences; Pathological publishing; Psychological disorder; Research malpractice; Research misconduct; Scientific fraud; Scientific misconduct

Indexed keywords

EID: 84904461905     PISSN: 18891861     EISSN: 19894007     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejpal.2014.06.005     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Ahmed I., Qazi T.F., Perji K. Mobile phone to youngsters: Necessity or addiction. African Journal of Business Management 2011, 5:12512-12519. 10.5897/AJBM11.626.
2. Aleixandre-Benavent R., Ferrer-Sapena A. ¿Qué nos aportan las redes sociales? [What does social networking provide us with?]. Anuario ThinkEPI 2010, 4:217-223.
3. American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington DC: Author.
4. American Society for Cell Biology (2013). The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). Retrieved from. http://am.ascb.org/dora/.
5. Anckarsäter H. Beyond categorical diagnostics in psychiatry: Scientific and medicolegal implications. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 2010, 33:59-65.
6. Asendorpf J.B., Conner M., De Fruyt F., De Houwer J., Denissen J.J.A., Fiedler K., Wicherts J.M. Recommendations for increasing replicability in psychology. European Journal of Personality 2013, 27:108-119. 10.1002/per.1919.
7. Bengoetxea E., Buela-Casal G. The new multidimensional and user-driven higher education ranking concept of the European Union. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology 2013, 13:67-73.
8. Block J.J. Issues for DSM-V: Internet addiction. American Journal of Psychiatry 2008, 165:306-307.
9. Bornmann L., Mutz R., Hug S.E., Daniel H.D. A multilevel meta-analysis of studies reporting correlations between the h index and 37 different h index variants. Journal of Informetrics 2011, 5:346-359.
10. Brown N.J.L., Sokal A.D., Friedman H.L. The complex dynamics of wishful thinking: The critical positivity ratio. American Psychologist 2013, 68:801-813. 10.1037/a0032850.
11. Brumback R.A. Journal combat: Initiating a publication, competing for visibility, and assuring ethical behavior. Journal of Evidence-Based Complementary & Alternative Medicine 2012, 17:4-8. 10.1177/2156587211428322.
12. Buela-Casal G. Evaluación de la calidad de los artículos y de las revistas científicas: Propuesta del factor de impacto ponderado y de un índice de calidad [Evaluating quality of articles and scientific journals. Proposal of weighted impact factor and a quality index?]. Psicothema 2003, 15:23-35.
13. Buela-Casal G. Scientific journal impact indexes and indicators for measurement researchers' performance. Revista de Psicodidáctica 2010, 15:3-19.
14. Buela-Casal G., Zych I. Analysis of the relationship between the number of citations and the quality evaluated by experts in psychology journals. Psicothema 2010, 22:270-276.
15. Buela-Casal G., Zych I. What do the scientists think about the impact factor?. Scientometrics 2012, 92:281-292.
16. Butler L., McAllister I. Evaluating university research performance using metrics. European Political Science 2011, 10:44-58.
17. Carbonell X., Guardiola E., Beranuy M., Bellés A. A bibliometric analysis of the scientific literature on Internet, video games, and cell phone addiction. Journal of the Medical Library Association 2009, 97:102-107. 10.3163/1536-5050.97.2.006.
18. Casadevall A., Fang F.C. Causes for the persistence of impact factor mania. mBio 2014, 5(2):e00064-e00114. 10.1128/mBio.00064-14.
19. European Association of Science Editors. (2007). EASE statement on inappropriate use of impact factors. European Association of Science Editors, 1-2. Retrieved from. http://www.ease.org.uk/publications/impact-factor-statement.
20. European Federation of Psychologists' Associations (2013). Staple affair: EFPA Board on Scientific Affairs Statement about Scientific Fraud in Research. Retrieved from. http://www.efpa.eu/news/staple-affairefpa-board-on-scientific-affairs-statement-about-scientific-fraud-in-research.
21. Fanelli D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE 2009, 4(5):e5738. 10.1371/journal.pone.0005738.
22. Fanelli D. Do pressures to publish increase scientists' bias?. An empirical support from US states data. PLoS ONE 2010, 5(4):e10271. 10.1371/journal.pone.0010271.
23. Fanelli D. Positive" results increase down the hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS ONE 2010, 5(4):e10068. 10.1371/journal.pone.0010068.
24. Fanelli D. Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics 2012, 90:891-904. 10.1007/s11192-011-0494-7.
25. Fanelli D. Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign. PLoS Medicine 2013, 10:e1001563. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001563.
26. Fanelli D., Ioannidis J.P.A. US studies may overestimate effect sizes in softer research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2013, 110:15031-15036. 10.1073/pnas.1302997110.
27. Fang F.C., Steen R.G., Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. PNAS 2012, 109:16751-16752. 10.1073/iti4212109.
28. Fernández-Mondéjar E., Ceraso H. Un estrepitoso caso de fraude científico [A flagrant case of scientific fraud]. Medicina Intensiva 2011, 35:232-327.
29. Fernández-Ríos L., Rodríguez-Díaz F.J. The "impact factor style of thinking": A new theoretical framework. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology 2014, 14:154-160.
30. García A. La tiranía del factor de impacto [tyranny of the impact factor]. Actualidad en Farmacología y Terapéutica 2014, 12:8-13.
31. Garfield E. Citation indexes for science; a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science 1955, 122:108-111.
32. González-Alcaide G., Valderrama-Zurián J.C., Aleixandre-Benavent R. The impact factor in non-English-speaking countries. Scientometrics 2012, 92:297-311.
33. Graczynski M.R. Personal impact factor: The need for speed. Medical Science Monitor 2008, 14:1-2.
34. Gross P.L.K., Gross E.M. College libraries and chemical education. Science 1927, 66:385-389.
35. Gullo M.J., O'Gorman J.G. DSM-5 task force proposes controversial diagnosis for dishonest scientists. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2012, 7:689. 10.1177/1745691612460689.
36. Hirsch J.E. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. PNAS 2005, 102:16569-16572.
37. Jaffe K. Do countries with lower self-citation rates produce higher impact papers?. Or, does humility pay?. Interciencia 2011, 36:694-698.
38. John L.K., Loewenstein G., Prelec D. Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science 2012, 2:524-532. 10.1177/0956797611430953.
39. Kousha K., Thelwall M. Disseminating research with web CV hyperlinks. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (Advance online publication) 2014, 10.1002/asi.23070.
40. Krull D.S., Silvera D.H. The stereotyping of science: Superficial details influence perceptions of what is scientific. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2013, 43:1660-1667.
41. Lawrence P.A. The politics of publication. Nature 2003, 422:259-261.
42. Lilienfeld S.O. Public skepticism of psychology: Why many people perceive the study of human behavior as unscientific. American Psychologist 2012, 67:111-129.
43. Mas-Bleda A., Thelwall M., Kousha K., Aguillo I. Do highly cited researchers successfully use the Social Web?. Scientometrics 2014.
44. Mas-Bleda A., Thelwall M., Kousha K., Aguillo I. Successful researchers publicizing research online: An outlink analysis of European highly cited scientists' personal websites. Journal of Documentation 2014, 70:148-172.
45. Obiols J.E. DSM 5: Precedents present and prospects. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology 2012, 12:281-290.
46. Olivas-Ávila J.A., Musi-Lechuga B. Aprendiendo a buscar en la Web of Science: Réplica al estudio de Aluja, Becoña, Botella, Colom, Echeburúa, Forns, Pérez y Vila (2011) [Learning to search on the Web of Science: A reply to the Aluja, Becoña, Botella, Colom, Echeburúa, Forns, Pérez and Vila (2011) study]. Psicothema 2012, 24:594-602.
47. Olivas-Ávila J.A., Musi-Lechuga B. Aprendiendo a usar el Researcher-ID como indicador de la producción científica [Learning to use the Researcher ID as a research production indicator]. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology 2013, 13:253-260.
48. Olivas-Ávila J.A., Musi-Lechuga B. Validez y fiabilidad del Researcher ID y de "Web of Science" production of Spanish psychology [Researcher ID and "Web of Science production of Spanish psychology": Validity and reliability]. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology 2014, 14:58-66.
49. Open Science Collaboration (2012). An open, large-scale, collaborative effort to estimate the reproducibility of psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 657-660.
50. Pashler H., Wagenmakers E.J. Editors' introduction to the special section on replicability in psychological science: A crisis in confidence?. Perspectives in Psychological Science 2012, 7:528-530. 10.1177/1745691612465253.
51. Perugini M., Gallucci M., Costantini G. Safeguard power as a protection against imprecise power estimates. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2014, 9:319-332. 10.1177/1745691614528519.
52. Peset-Mancebo M.F., Ferrer-Sapena A., Coronado-Ferrer S., González-de-Dios J., Aleixandre-Benavent R. Web 2.0 en Medicina y Pediatría (I) [Web 2.0 in Medicine and Pediatrics (I). Acta Pediátrica Española 2011, 69:3-11.
53. Peset Mancebo M.F., Ferrer Sapena A., Coronado Ferrer S., González de Dios J., Aleixandre-Benavent R. Web 2.0 en Medicina y Pediatría (y II) [Web 2.0 in Medicine and Pediatrics (and II)]. Acta Pediátrica Española 2011, 69:79-87.
54. Reed G.M., Anaya C., Evans S.C. ¿Qué es la CIE y por qué es importante en la psicología? [What is the ICD and why is it important to psychology?]. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology 2012, 12:461-473.
55. Rodríguez-Testal, J.F., Senín, C., & Perona, S. (2014). From DSM-IV-TR to DSM-5: analysis of some changes. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 14,.
56. Schekman, R. (2013, December 9). How journals like Nature, Cell and Science are damaging science. The Guardian. Retrieved from. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/09/how-journals-nature-science-cell-damage-science.
57. Schekman, R., & Patterson, M. (2013). Science policy: Reforming research assessment. eLife, 2, e00855. http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.00855.
58. Shema H., Bar-Ilan J., Thelwall M. Do blog citations correlate with a higher number of future citations? Research blogs as a potential source for alternative metrics. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2014, 65:1018-1027.
59. Simons K. The misused impact factor. Science 2008, 322:165.
60. Simonsohn, U. (2013). Small telescopes: Detectability and the evaluation of replication results. SSRN Retrieved from. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2259879.
61. Sternberg, R.J. (2013). Self-sabotage in the academic career: 15 ways in which faculty members harm their own futures, often without knowing it. Chronicle of Higher Education, 59, May 3, A36-A37.
62. Stroebe W., Postmes T., Spears R. Scientific misconduct and the myth of self-correction in science. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2012, 7:670-688. 10.1177/1745691612460687.
63. Thelwall M. Journal impact evaluation: A webometric perspective. Scientometrics 2012, 92:429-441. 10.1007/s11192-012-0669-x.
64. Thelwall M., Haustein S., Larivière V., Sugimoto C. Do altmetrics work?. Twitter and ten other candidates. PLoS ONE 2013, 8:e64841. 10.1371/journal.pone.0064841.
65. Timimi S. No more psychiatric labels: Why formal psychiatric diagnostic systems should be abolished. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology 2014, 14. 10.1016/j.ijchp.2014.03.004.
66. Vale R.D. Evaluating how we evaluate. Molecular Biology of the Cell 2012, 23:3285-3289. 10.1091/mbc.E12-06-0490.
67. Wortzel H.S. The DSM-5 and forensic psychiatry. Journal of Psychiatric Practice 2013, 19:238-241. 10.1097/01.pra.0000430508.44768.9d.
68. Wouters P., Costas R. Users, narcissism and control - tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century 2012, SURF Foundation, Utrecht, Holland.
69. Zahedi Z., Costas R., Wouters P. How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of 'alternative metrics' in scientific publications. Scientometrics 2014, 96:1-23. 10.1007/s11192-014-1264-0.
70. Zhang Y. Comparison of select reference management tools. Medical Reference Services Quarterly 2012, 31:45-60.