基于数据挖掘的21世纪学术出版物撤稿研究。

IF 4 1区 哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS
Qian Shen, Xueyan Gao, Xiaomeng Xiong
{"title":"基于数据挖掘的21世纪学术出版物撤稿研究。","authors":"Qian Shen, Xueyan Gao, Xiaomeng Xiong","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2025.2528064","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> The rising number of academic retractions has drawn increasing attention across the academic community. With the availability of large-scale retraction data from Crossref and Retraction Watch, systematic analysis of academic retractions has become feasible.<b>Methods:</b> This study examines all retracted academic publications from the 21st century up to June 4th, 2025. By using BERTopic, Apriori, and data visualization techniques, we've conducted a comprehensive analysis across six subjects with over 6,000 retractions of each subject.<b>Results and conclusions:</b> Our findings detail retraction counts, durations, topic trends, author nationalities, publishers, retraction reasons, and associations among these factors. The overall number of retractions has been continuously rising, with sharp increases in 2010 and 2020 to 2023, and the peak occurring in 2023. The primary reasons for retractions in biomedical studies are paper mills and issues with data and images, with third parties being the main initiators of investigations. In computer science and technology, retractions are mainly due to referencing and attribution issues, as well as unreliable results, with journals, conferences, and publishers often initiating the investigations. We also offer some suggestions that can help monitor research misconduct in academic publications.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-23"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A data mining-based study on academic publication retractions in the 21st Century.\",\"authors\":\"Qian Shen, Xueyan Gao, Xiaomeng Xiong\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08989621.2025.2528064\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background:</b> The rising number of academic retractions has drawn increasing attention across the academic community. With the availability of large-scale retraction data from Crossref and Retraction Watch, systematic analysis of academic retractions has become feasible.<b>Methods:</b> This study examines all retracted academic publications from the 21st century up to June 4th, 2025. By using BERTopic, Apriori, and data visualization techniques, we've conducted a comprehensive analysis across six subjects with over 6,000 retractions of each subject.<b>Results and conclusions:</b> Our findings detail retraction counts, durations, topic trends, author nationalities, publishers, retraction reasons, and associations among these factors. The overall number of retractions has been continuously rising, with sharp increases in 2010 and 2020 to 2023, and the peak occurring in 2023. The primary reasons for retractions in biomedical studies are paper mills and issues with data and images, with third parties being the main initiators of investigations. In computer science and technology, retractions are mainly due to referencing and attribution issues, as well as unreliable results, with journals, conferences, and publishers often initiating the investigations. We also offer some suggestions that can help monitor research misconduct in academic publications.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50927,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-23\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-05\",\"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/10.1080/08989621.2025.2528064\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2528064","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

摘要

背景:越来越多的学术撤稿引起了学术界越来越多的关注。随着来自Crossref和retraction Watch的大规模撤稿数据的可用性,对学术撤稿的系统分析已经成为可能。方法:本研究对21世纪至2025年6月4日的所有撤稿学术出版物进行分析。通过使用BERTopic、Apriori和数据可视化技术,我们对6个主题进行了全面分析,每个主题的撤稿次数超过6000次。结果和结论:我们的研究结果详细说明了撤稿数量、持续时间、主题趋势、作者国籍、出版商、撤稿原因以及这些因素之间的关联。撤稿总数持续上升,2010年和2020 - 2023年大幅增加,2023年达到峰值。生物医学研究撤回的主要原因是造纸厂和数据和图像问题,第三方是调查的主要发起者。在计算机科学和技术领域,撤稿主要是由于引用和归因问题,以及不可靠的结果,通常由期刊、会议和出版商发起调查。我们还提供了一些建议,可以帮助监测学术出版物中的研究不端行为。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A data mining-based study on academic publication retractions in the 21st Century.

Background: The rising number of academic retractions has drawn increasing attention across the academic community. With the availability of large-scale retraction data from Crossref and Retraction Watch, systematic analysis of academic retractions has become feasible.Methods: This study examines all retracted academic publications from the 21st century up to June 4th, 2025. By using BERTopic, Apriori, and data visualization techniques, we've conducted a comprehensive analysis across six subjects with over 6,000 retractions of each subject.Results and conclusions: Our findings detail retraction counts, durations, topic trends, author nationalities, publishers, retraction reasons, and associations among these factors. The overall number of retractions has been continuously rising, with sharp increases in 2010 and 2020 to 2023, and the peak occurring in 2023. The primary reasons for retractions in biomedical studies are paper mills and issues with data and images, with third parties being the main initiators of investigations. In computer science and technology, retractions are mainly due to referencing and attribution issues, as well as unreliable results, with journals, conferences, and publishers often initiating the investigations. We also offer some suggestions that can help monitor research misconduct in academic publications.

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
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
14.70%
发文量
49
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.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信