作者不同意撤稿:程序问题日益严重?

J. A. Teixeira da Silva
{"title":"作者不同意撤稿:程序问题日益严重?","authors":"J. A. Teixeira da Silva","doi":"10.5294/pebi.2023.27.2.6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Several studies have already documented a lack of transparency in retraction notices (RNs), which often omit important information that would allow readers to appreciate the entire process’s intricacies, including those involved and the reasons leading up to the retrac-tion. One issue rarely discussed in the academic literature is authors’ disagreement with retractions, the wording of RNs, or retractions themselves. In this paper, using six examples of retractions and their respective RNs across journals and/or publishers, all COPE members, a reflection is offered as to why this issue needs a more intense debate and greater procedural clarity by editors, journals, and publishers.","PeriodicalId":517139,"journal":{"name":"Persona y Bioética","volume":"77 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Authors Disagreeing with Retractions: A Growing Procedural Concern?\",\"authors\":\"J. A. Teixeira da Silva\",\"doi\":\"10.5294/pebi.2023.27.2.6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Several studies have already documented a lack of transparency in retraction notices (RNs), which often omit important information that would allow readers to appreciate the entire process’s intricacies, including those involved and the reasons leading up to the retrac-tion. One issue rarely discussed in the academic literature is authors’ disagreement with retractions, the wording of RNs, or retractions themselves. In this paper, using six examples of retractions and their respective RNs across journals and/or publishers, all COPE members, a reflection is offered as to why this issue needs a more intense debate and greater procedural clarity by editors, journals, and publishers.\",\"PeriodicalId\":517139,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Persona y Bioética\",\"volume\":\"77 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Persona y Bioética\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5294/pebi.2023.27.2.6\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Persona y Bioética","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5294/pebi.2023.27.2.6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

一些研究已经证明,撤稿通知(RNs)缺乏透明度,往往忽略了一些重要信息,而这些信息可以让读者了解整个过程的复杂性,包括参与撤稿的人员和导致撤稿的原因。学术文献中很少讨论的一个问题是作者对撤稿、RNs 的措辞或撤稿本身的异议。本文通过六个期刊和/或出版商(均为 COPE 成员)的撤稿及其各自的 RNs 例子,反思了编辑、期刊和出版商为何需要对这一问题进行更激烈的讨论和更清晰的程序。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Authors Disagreeing with Retractions: A Growing Procedural Concern?
Several studies have already documented a lack of transparency in retraction notices (RNs), which often omit important information that would allow readers to appreciate the entire process’s intricacies, including those involved and the reasons leading up to the retrac-tion. One issue rarely discussed in the academic literature is authors’ disagreement with retractions, the wording of RNs, or retractions themselves. In this paper, using six examples of retractions and their respective RNs across journals and/or publishers, all COPE members, a reflection is offered as to why this issue needs a more intense debate and greater procedural clarity by editors, journals, and publishers.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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