Plagiarism Allegations Account for Most Retractions in Major Latin American/Caribbean Databases

Science and Engineering Ethics

Volumn 22, Issue 5, 2016, Pages 1447-1456

  Almeida, Renan Moritz V R ^a   de Albuquerque Rocha, Karina ^a   Catelani, Fernanda ^a   Fontes Pereira, Aldo José ^a   Vasconcelos, Sonia M R ^a  

^a FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF RIO DE JANEIRO   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Correction of the literature; Plagiarism; Research integrity; Research misconduct; Retractions

Indexed keywords

CARIBBEAN; ETHICS; FACTUAL DATABASE; HUMAN; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; SOUTH AND CENTRAL AMERICA; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

CARIBBEAN REGION; DATABASES, FACTUAL; HUMANS; LATIN AMERICA; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PLAGIARISM; RETRACTION OF PUBLICATION AS TOPIC;

EID: 84945575318     PISSN: 13533452     EISSN: 14715546     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11948-015-9714-5     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Alfaro-Toloza, P., Mayta-Tristan, P., & Rodriguez-Morales, A. J. (2013). Publication misconduct and plagiarism retractions: a Latin American perspective. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 29(2), 99–100.
2. Amos, A. K. (2014). The ethics of scholarly publishing: Exploring differences in plagiarism and duplicate publication across nations. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 102(2), 87–91.
3. Anderson, M., Kot, F. C., Shaw, M. A., Lepkowski, C. C., & De Vries, R. G. (2011). Authorship diplomacy: Cross-national differences complicate allocation of credit and responsibility. American Scientist, 99(3), 204–207.
4. Bohannon J. (2014). Study of massive preprint archive hints at the geography of plagiarism. Science Insider. 11 December. http://tinyurl.com/q7y8hzp, Access March 2015.
5. Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq). (2011). Directives for Research Integrity. http://www.cnpq.br/web/guest/diretrizes. Accessed September 2014.
6. Citron, D. T., & Ginsparg, P. (2015). Patterns of text reuse in a scientific corpus. PNAS, 112(1), 25–30.
7. Cokol, M., Ozbay, F., & Rodriguez-Esteban, R. (2008). Retraction rates are on the rise. EMBO Reports, 9(1), 2. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7401143.
8. COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) (2009). Retraction Guidelines. http://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines.pdf. Accessed March 2015.
9. Corbyn, Z. (2009). Retractions up tenfold. Higher Education: Times. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/407838.article. Accessed January 2014.
10. Fanelli, D. (2013). Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign. PLoS Medicine,. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001563.
11. Fang, F., Grant, S. C. R., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. PNAS,. doi:10.1073/pnas.1212247109.
12. Grieneisen, M. L., & Zhang, M. (2012). A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature. PLoSOne, 7(10), e44118. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0044118.
13. He, T. (2012). Retraction of global scientific publications from 2001 to 2010. Scientometrics, 96, 555–561.
14. Heitman, E., & Litewka, S. (2011). International perspectives on plagiarism and considerations for teaching international trainees. Urologic Oncology, 29(1), 104–108.
15. Huggett S. (2012). The rise of Latin American Science. Research Trends 31. http://www.researchtrends.com/issue-31-November-2012/the-rise-of-latin-american-science. Accessed Nov 2014.
16. LILACS- Latin American & Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences. (2010). Journal selection and permanent criteria. http://tinyurl.com/p4f6u42. Accessed January 2015.
17. LILACS-Latin American & Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences. (2014). http://LILACS.bvsalud.org Accessed November 2014.
18. Lu, S. F., Jin, G. Z, Uzzi, B., Jones, B. (2013). The retraction penalty: Evidence from the Web of Science. Scientific Reports 3(3146).
19. Packer, A. L. (2009). The SciELO open access: A gold way from the South. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 39(3), 111–126.
20. Resnik, D. B., & Dinse, G. E. (2013). Scientific retractions and corrections related to misconduct findings. Journal of Medical Ethics, 39, 46–50.
21. Roig, M. (2014). Critical issues in the teaching of responsible writing. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, December. http://tinyurl.com/onh22oq. Accessed December 2014.
22. SciELO – Scientific Electronic Library Online. (2014). http://www.scielo.org. Accessed November 2014.
23. Steen, R. G. (2011). Retractions in the scientific literature: Is the incidence of research fraud increasing? Journal of Medical Ethics, 37(3), 249–253.
24. Steen, R. G., Casadevall, A., & Fang, F. C. (2013). Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? PLoS ONE, 8(7), e68397.
25. Stretton, S., Bramich, N. J., Keys, J. R., Monk, J. A., Ely, J. A., Haley, C., et al. (2012a). Publication misconduct and plagiarism retractions: A systematic, retrospective study. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 28, 1575–1583.
26. Stretton, S., Bramich, N. J., Keys, J. R., Monk, J. A., Ely, J. A., Haley, C., et al. (2012b). Publication misconduct and plagiarism retractions: A systematic, retrospective study. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 28(10), 1575–1583.
27. Thomson Reuters. (2014). Journal Citation Reports. http://thomsonreuters.com/journal-citation-reports. Accessed November 2014.
28. Van Noorden, R. (2011). The trouble with retractions. Nature, 478(7367), 26–28.
29. Van Noorden, R. (2013a). Brazil fêtes open-access site. Nature, 502(7472), 418.
30. Van Noorden, R. (2013b). Brazilian citation scheme outed. Nature, 500(7464), 510–511.
31. Vasconcelos, S., Leta, J., Costa, L., Pinto, A., & Sorenson, M. M. (2009). Discussing plagiarism in Latin American Science. EMBO Reports, 10(7), 677–682.
32. Wager, E., & Williams, P. (2011). Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988–2008. Journal of Medical Ethics, 37, 567–570.
33. Williams, P., & Wager, E. (2013). Exploring why and how journal editors retract articles: Findings from a qualitative study. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19, 1–11.
34. Yilmaz, I. (2007). Plagiarism? No, we’re just borrowing better English. Nature, 449(7163), 658.