An analysis of availability and implications of unlabeled retracted articles on Sci-Hub.

IF 2.8 1区哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1080/08989621.2024.2446558

Biju V V, Sanjo Jose, Franklin J, Jasimudeen S

{"title":"An analysis of availability and implications of unlabeled retracted articles on Sci-Hub.","authors":"Biju V V, Sanjo Jose, Franklin J, Jasimudeen S","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2446558","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Researchers are increasingly accessing scientific articles through unauthorized websites like Sci-Hub. Sci-Hub contains retracted articles, including those which are not labelled as retracted, and this is a potential threat to academic research.Methods: This study analyses the extent of the availability of retracted articles within the Sci-Hub, particularly focusing on the presence of unlabeled retracted articles (URA) which may inadvertently be used in subsequent research, thus propagating flawed findings. The authors identified 16925 English-language research articles retracted between 2003 and 2022 indexed in the Web of Science and Scopus databases. These articles were cross-checked with Sci-Hub to ascertain whether they were appropriately labelled as retracted.Results: The investigation revealed that 84.83% of the retracted articles available on Sci-Hub do not have any indication of their retracted status. These URA could potentially be reused by researchers, unaware of their retracted status. The availability of URA in the field of health sciences is particularly high, which indicates a significant risk of their unintended use and further citation in future research.Conclusions: This study underscores the crucial need for stringent implementation of regulatory measures on retraction suggested by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) or newly published National Information Standards Organization (NISO) recommendations.","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-20"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2446558","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Researchers are increasingly accessing scientific articles through unauthorized websites like Sci-Hub. Sci-Hub contains retracted articles, including those which are not labelled as retracted, and this is a potential threat to academic research.

Methods: This study analyses the extent of the availability of retracted articles within the Sci-Hub, particularly focusing on the presence of unlabeled retracted articles (URA) which may inadvertently be used in subsequent research, thus propagating flawed findings. The authors identified 16925 English-language research articles retracted between 2003 and 2022 indexed in the Web of Science and Scopus databases. These articles were cross-checked with Sci-Hub to ascertain whether they were appropriately labelled as retracted.

Results: The investigation revealed that 84.83% of the retracted articles available on Sci-Hub do not have any indication of their retracted status. These URA could potentially be reused by researchers, unaware of their retracted status. The availability of URA in the field of health sciences is particularly high, which indicates a significant risk of their unintended use and further citation in future research.

Conclusions: This study underscores the crucial need for stringent implementation of regulatory measures on retraction suggested by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) or newly published National Information Standards Organization (NISO) recommendations.

查看原文本刊更多论文

Sci-Hub上未标注撤稿文章的可用性及其影响分析。

背景：越来越多的研究人员通过Sci-Hub等未经授权的网站访问科学文章。Sci-Hub包含撤回的文章，包括那些没有标记为撤回的文章，这是对学术研究的潜在威胁。方法：本研究分析了Sci-Hub中撤回文章的可用性，特别关注未标记撤回文章（URA）的存在，这些文章可能无意中被用于后续研究，从而传播有缺陷的发现。作者在Web of Science和Scopus数据库中检索了2003年至2022年间被撤回的16925篇英文研究论文。这些文章与Sci-Hub进行了交叉核对，以确定它们是否被适当地标记为撤回。结果：调查发现，Sci-Hub上被撤稿的文章中，84.83%未显示其撤稿状态。这些URA可能会被研究人员重新使用，而不知道它们的收回状态。在保健科学领域，URA的可用性特别高，这表明它们在未来的研究中意外使用和进一步引用的风险很大。结论：本研究强调了严格执行出版伦理委员会（COPE）或新发布的国家信息标准组织（NISO）建议的撤稿监管措施的必要性。

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

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance MEDICAL ETHICS-

CiteScore

4.90

自引率

14.70%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results. The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.