更新包括撤稿数据在内的标准化引用指标的全科学作者数据库

John Ioannidis, Angelo Maria Pezzullo, Antonio Cristiano, Stefania Boccia, Jeroen Baas
{"title":"更新包括撤稿数据在内的标准化引用指标的全科学作者数据库","authors":"John Ioannidis, Angelo Maria Pezzullo, Antonio Cristiano, Stefania Boccia, Jeroen Baas","doi":"10.1101/2024.09.16.613258","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We have updated a Scopus-based database of highly-cited scientists (top-2% in each scientific subfield according to a composite citation indicator) to incorporate retraction data. Using data from the Retraction Watch database (RWDB), retraction records were linked to Scopus citation data. Of 55,237 items in RWDB as of August 15, 2024, we excluded non-retractions, retractions clearly not due to any author error, retractions where the paper had been republished, and items not linkable to Scopus records. Eventually 39,468 eligible retractions were linked to Scopus. Scientists with retracted publications had younger publication age, higher self-citation rates, and larger publication volume than those without any retracted publications. Retractions were more common in the life sciences and rare or nonexistent in several other disciplines. In several developing countries, very high proportions of top-cited scientists had retractions (highest in Senegal (66.7%), Ecuador (28.6%) and Pakistan (27.8%) in career-long citation impact lists). Variability in retraction rates across fields and countries suggests differences in research practices, scrutiny, and ease of retraction. Addition of retraction data enhances the granularity of top-cited scientists' profiles, aiding in responsible research evaluation. However, caution is needed when interpreting retractions, as they do not always signify misconduct; further analysis on a case-by-case basis is essential. The database should hopefully provide a resource for meta-research and deeper insights into scientific practices.","PeriodicalId":501568,"journal":{"name":"bioRxiv - Scientific Communication and Education","volume":"100 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Updated science-wide author databases of standardized citation indicators including retraction data\",\"authors\":\"John Ioannidis, Angelo Maria Pezzullo, Antonio Cristiano, Stefania Boccia, Jeroen Baas\",\"doi\":\"10.1101/2024.09.16.613258\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We have updated a Scopus-based database of highly-cited scientists (top-2% in each scientific subfield according to a composite citation indicator) to incorporate retraction data. Using data from the Retraction Watch database (RWDB), retraction records were linked to Scopus citation data. Of 55,237 items in RWDB as of August 15, 2024, we excluded non-retractions, retractions clearly not due to any author error, retractions where the paper had been republished, and items not linkable to Scopus records. Eventually 39,468 eligible retractions were linked to Scopus. Scientists with retracted publications had younger publication age, higher self-citation rates, and larger publication volume than those without any retracted publications. Retractions were more common in the life sciences and rare or nonexistent in several other disciplines. In several developing countries, very high proportions of top-cited scientists had retractions (highest in Senegal (66.7%), Ecuador (28.6%) and Pakistan (27.8%) in career-long citation impact lists). Variability in retraction rates across fields and countries suggests differences in research practices, scrutiny, and ease of retraction. Addition of retraction data enhances the granularity of top-cited scientists' profiles, aiding in responsible research evaluation. However, caution is needed when interpreting retractions, as they do not always signify misconduct; further analysis on a case-by-case basis is essential. The database should hopefully provide a resource for meta-research and deeper insights into scientific practices.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501568,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"bioRxiv - Scientific Communication and Education\",\"volume\":\"100 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"bioRxiv - Scientific Communication and Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.16.613258\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"bioRxiv - Scientific Communication and Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.16.613258","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

我们更新了基于 Scopus 的高被引科学家数据库(根据综合引文指标,每个科学子领域的前 2%),将撤稿数据纳入其中。利用撤稿观察数据库(RWDB)的数据,我们将撤稿记录与 Scopus 引用数据进行了链接。截至 2024 年 8 月 15 日,在 RWDB 的 55237 条数据中,我们剔除了非撤稿、明显非因作者失误造成的撤稿、论文被重新发表的撤稿以及无法与 Scopus 记录链接的数据。最终有 39468 篇符合条件的撤稿论文与 Scopus 建立了链接。与没有发表过撤稿论文的科学家相比,发表过撤稿论文的科学家发表论文的年龄更小、自我引用率更高,发表论文的数量也更多。撤稿在生命科学领域更为常见,而在其他几个学科则很少见或根本不存在。在一些发展中国家,被引用次数最多的科学家中被撤稿的比例非常高(在塞内加尔(66.7%)、厄瓜多尔(28.6%)和巴基斯坦(27.8%)的职业生涯引文影响列表中最高)。不同领域和国家的撤稿率差异表明,研究实践、审查和撤稿难易程度存在差异。撤稿数据的增加提高了高被引科学家概况的粒度,有助于进行负责任的研究评估。不过,在解释撤稿时需要谨慎,因为撤稿并不总是意味着不当行为;必须根据具体情况进行进一步分析。该数据库有望为元研究和深入了解科学实践提供资源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Updated science-wide author databases of standardized citation indicators including retraction data
We have updated a Scopus-based database of highly-cited scientists (top-2% in each scientific subfield according to a composite citation indicator) to incorporate retraction data. Using data from the Retraction Watch database (RWDB), retraction records were linked to Scopus citation data. Of 55,237 items in RWDB as of August 15, 2024, we excluded non-retractions, retractions clearly not due to any author error, retractions where the paper had been republished, and items not linkable to Scopus records. Eventually 39,468 eligible retractions were linked to Scopus. Scientists with retracted publications had younger publication age, higher self-citation rates, and larger publication volume than those without any retracted publications. Retractions were more common in the life sciences and rare or nonexistent in several other disciplines. In several developing countries, very high proportions of top-cited scientists had retractions (highest in Senegal (66.7%), Ecuador (28.6%) and Pakistan (27.8%) in career-long citation impact lists). Variability in retraction rates across fields and countries suggests differences in research practices, scrutiny, and ease of retraction. Addition of retraction data enhances the granularity of top-cited scientists' profiles, aiding in responsible research evaluation. However, caution is needed when interpreting retractions, as they do not always signify misconduct; further analysis on a case-by-case basis is essential. The database should hopefully provide a resource for meta-research and deeper insights into scientific practices.
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