Reliability of the primary scientific literature

IF 0.4 4区 综合性期刊 Q4 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
A. Abeysekera
{"title":"Reliability of the primary scientific literature","authors":"A. Abeysekera","doi":"10.4038/jnsfsr.v51i4.11991","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The confidence that scientists and the public have in the reliability of the primary scientific literature stems from a cardinal feature of scientific knowledge itself; that it is public knowledge open to verification by anyone independently, and that its validity does not depend upon the authority of the individual/persons reporting the knowledge. Thus, it has been the norm that extravagant claims made on deliberately falsified data (or wrongly interpreted data driven by an overabundance of enthusiasm) were rare, and exposed early on after publication. Retractions, when made by authors due to honest errors, served to enhance the confidence in scientific knowledge, and is considered a demonstration of the inherent nature of scientific knowledge to correct itself, as it progresses.However, the large number of retractions by publishers that are now being reported has made a dent in this confidence. It was recently reported in Nature that there were over 10,000 retractions in 2023. The reasons for the retractions were multifarious, and included papers identified as coming from paper mills, papers where images and data had been manipulated and papers published after fraudulent peer review.Of special interest was the observation that the largest number of retractions were from special issues related to specific topics or conference proceedings. There is a legitimate view that special issues serve a purpose and can enhance the profile of a journal. Nevertheless, it is ironical that special issues today are not special, but have become common, and have lost the original high purpose for which they were intended; to bring together a limited number of papers by established scientists on an emerging topic of relevance and current interest, which could spur on further development.Editorial boards need to be alert to the increasing amount of malpractice among unethical practitioners professing to be scientists. The COPE documents on retractions provide sound and practical guidelines to minimize the publication of dubious papers which would need to be retracted later.","PeriodicalId":17429,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the National Science Foundation of Sri Lanka","volume":"3 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the National Science Foundation of Sri Lanka","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4038/jnsfsr.v51i4.11991","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The confidence that scientists and the public have in the reliability of the primary scientific literature stems from a cardinal feature of scientific knowledge itself; that it is public knowledge open to verification by anyone independently, and that its validity does not depend upon the authority of the individual/persons reporting the knowledge. Thus, it has been the norm that extravagant claims made on deliberately falsified data (or wrongly interpreted data driven by an overabundance of enthusiasm) were rare, and exposed early on after publication. Retractions, when made by authors due to honest errors, served to enhance the confidence in scientific knowledge, and is considered a demonstration of the inherent nature of scientific knowledge to correct itself, as it progresses.However, the large number of retractions by publishers that are now being reported has made a dent in this confidence. It was recently reported in Nature that there were over 10,000 retractions in 2023. The reasons for the retractions were multifarious, and included papers identified as coming from paper mills, papers where images and data had been manipulated and papers published after fraudulent peer review.Of special interest was the observation that the largest number of retractions were from special issues related to specific topics or conference proceedings. There is a legitimate view that special issues serve a purpose and can enhance the profile of a journal. Nevertheless, it is ironical that special issues today are not special, but have become common, and have lost the original high purpose for which they were intended; to bring together a limited number of papers by established scientists on an emerging topic of relevance and current interest, which could spur on further development.Editorial boards need to be alert to the increasing amount of malpractice among unethical practitioners professing to be scientists. The COPE documents on retractions provide sound and practical guidelines to minimize the publication of dubious papers which would need to be retracted later.
主要科学文献的可靠性
科学家和公众对原始科学文献可靠性的信心源于科学知识本身的一个主要特点:它是公共知识,任何人都可以独立验证,其有效性并不取决于报告知识的个人的权威性。因此,根据蓄意伪造的数据(或因过度热情而错误解释的数据)提出的奢侈主张很少见,而且在发表后很早就会被揭露。当作者因诚实的错误而撤稿时,这有助于增强人们对科学知识的信心,并被认为是科学知识在发展过程中自我纠正的内在本质的体现。据《自然》杂志最近报道,2023年有超过1万篇论文被撤稿。撤稿的原因五花八门,包括被认定来自造纸厂的论文、图片和数据被篡改的论文以及在同行评审中弄虚作假后发表的论文。有一种合理的观点认为,特刊具有一定的作用,可以提升期刊的形象。然而,具有讽刺意味的是,如今的特刊已不再特别,而是变得常见,失去了最初的崇高宗旨:汇集知名科学家就当前感兴趣的相关新兴课题撰写的数量有限的论文,从而推动期刊的进一步发展。COPE 关于撤稿的文件提供了合理实用的指导原则,以尽量减少发表日后需要撤稿的可疑论文。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
57
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of National Science Foundation of Sri Lanka (JNSF) publishes the results of research in Science and Technology. The journal is released four times a year, in March, June, September and December. This journal contains Research Articles, Reviews, Research Communications and Correspondences. Manuscripts submitted to the journal are accepted on the understanding that they will be reviewed prior to acceptance and that they have not been submitted for publication elsewhere.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信