撤稿研究:系统回顾与研究议程。

IF 4 1区 哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS
Sefika Mertkan, David Mills, Aygil Takir, Esma Emmioglu Sarıkaya
{"title":"撤稿研究:系统回顾与研究议程。","authors":"Sefika Mertkan, David Mills, Aygil Takir, Esma Emmioglu Sarıkaya","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2025.2542203","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is a growing concern about the scale of journal retractions across the globe science system, and about the implications of the increase in retractions for scientific record and research integrity. This systematic review aims to further our understanding of existing research on retractions and offer recommendations for further research.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This systematic review employs a topographical review approach. It examines the volume and growth trajectory of the journal literature on retractions since the first research paper on retractions published in 1998 and offers insights into the publication trends and patterns over this period, focusing on the composition of this knowledge base in terms of research contexts, research methods, and research themes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Vast majority of the scholarship on retractions involves quantitative overviews, often relying on basic descriptive statistical analyses of retraction trends and patterns. Results clearly demonstrate sensitivities and stigma around retractions mean that there have been very few published qualitative studies, and little attention to the perspectives and experiences of the retracted scholars themselves. Almost no papers have explored the links between the career pressures placed on researchers, the commercial focus of many academic publishers, and the role of 'paper mills' in facilitating authorship in indexed journals.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The paper concludes with a call for more holistic and qualitative research on these aspects of retractions and makes a series of practical and policy recommendations.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-22"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Research on retractions: A systematic review and research agenda.\",\"authors\":\"Sefika Mertkan, David Mills, Aygil Takir, Esma Emmioglu Sarıkaya\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08989621.2025.2542203\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is a growing concern about the scale of journal retractions across the globe science system, and about the implications of the increase in retractions for scientific record and research integrity. This systematic review aims to further our understanding of existing research on retractions and offer recommendations for further research.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This systematic review employs a topographical review approach. It examines the volume and growth trajectory of the journal literature on retractions since the first research paper on retractions published in 1998 and offers insights into the publication trends and patterns over this period, focusing on the composition of this knowledge base in terms of research contexts, research methods, and research themes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Vast majority of the scholarship on retractions involves quantitative overviews, often relying on basic descriptive statistical analyses of retraction trends and patterns. Results clearly demonstrate sensitivities and stigma around retractions mean that there have been very few published qualitative studies, and little attention to the perspectives and experiences of the retracted scholars themselves. Almost no papers have explored the links between the career pressures placed on researchers, the commercial focus of many academic publishers, and the role of 'paper mills' in facilitating authorship in indexed journals.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The paper concludes with a call for more holistic and qualitative research on these aspects of retractions and makes a series of practical and policy recommendations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50927,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-22\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-10\",\"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/10.1080/08989621.2025.2542203\",\"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/10.1080/08989621.2025.2542203","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:人们越来越关注全球科学系统期刊撤稿的规模,以及撤稿增加对科学记录和研究完整性的影响。本系统综述旨在加深我们对撤稿研究的认识,并为进一步的研究提供建议。方法:本系统综述采用地形综述方法。它考察了自1998年第一篇关于撤稿的研究论文发表以来,关于撤稿的期刊文献的数量和增长轨迹,并提供了对这一时期出版趋势和模式的见解,重点关注了研究背景、研究方法和研究主题方面知识库的构成。结果:绝大多数关于撤稿的学术研究涉及定量概述,通常依赖于对撤稿趋势和模式的基本描述性统计分析。结果清楚地表明,围绕撤稿的敏感性和耻辱感意味着很少有发表的定性研究,很少有人关注撤稿学者自己的观点和经历。几乎没有论文探讨研究人员的职业压力、许多学术出版商的商业焦点以及“造纸厂”在促进索引期刊作者身份方面的作用之间的联系。结论:本文最后呼吁对撤稿的这些方面进行更全面和定性的研究,并提出了一系列实践和政策建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Research on retractions: A systematic review and research agenda.

Background: There is a growing concern about the scale of journal retractions across the globe science system, and about the implications of the increase in retractions for scientific record and research integrity. This systematic review aims to further our understanding of existing research on retractions and offer recommendations for further research.

Method: This systematic review employs a topographical review approach. It examines the volume and growth trajectory of the journal literature on retractions since the first research paper on retractions published in 1998 and offers insights into the publication trends and patterns over this period, focusing on the composition of this knowledge base in terms of research contexts, research methods, and research themes.

Results: Vast majority of the scholarship on retractions involves quantitative overviews, often relying on basic descriptive statistical analyses of retraction trends and patterns. Results clearly demonstrate sensitivities and stigma around retractions mean that there have been very few published qualitative studies, and little attention to the perspectives and experiences of the retracted scholars themselves. Almost no papers have explored the links between the career pressures placed on researchers, the commercial focus of many academic publishers, and the role of 'paper mills' in facilitating authorship in indexed journals.

Conclusions: The paper concludes with a call for more holistic and qualitative research on these aspects of retractions and makes a series of practical and policy recommendations.

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