新冠肺炎大流行中的“研究例外论”:对Scopus科学撤回的分析

IF 1.8 3区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
P. Rubbo, Caroline Lievore, Celso Biynkievycz Dos Santos, C. T. Picinin, L. Pilatti, Bruno Pedroso
{"title":"新冠肺炎大流行中的“研究例外论”:对Scopus科学撤回的分析","authors":"P. Rubbo, Caroline Lievore, Celso Biynkievycz Dos Santos, C. T. Picinin, L. Pilatti, Bruno Pedroso","doi":"10.1080/10508422.2022.2080067","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This study aimed to outline the profile of retractions of scientific articles on COVID-19 published in journals indexed in the Scopus database between 2020 and 2021. To analyze the data, we used a bibliometric technique, with the Bibliometrix package in the R-Studio software, and descriptive statistics. Twenty-nine retractions were analyzed, and we found that the most common reasons for retraction were related to ethical issues and that 68.97% of authors have previously retracted articles. We concluded that there appears to have been a change in the publication policies of journals, which resulted in an increase in scientific retractions related to COVID-19 during the study period.","PeriodicalId":47265,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & Behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“Research exceptionalism” in the COVID-19 pandemic: an analysis of scientific retractions in Scopus\",\"authors\":\"P. Rubbo, Caroline Lievore, Celso Biynkievycz Dos Santos, C. T. Picinin, L. Pilatti, Bruno Pedroso\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10508422.2022.2080067\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This study aimed to outline the profile of retractions of scientific articles on COVID-19 published in journals indexed in the Scopus database between 2020 and 2021. To analyze the data, we used a bibliometric technique, with the Bibliometrix package in the R-Studio software, and descriptive statistics. Twenty-nine retractions were analyzed, and we found that the most common reasons for retraction were related to ethical issues and that 68.97% of authors have previously retracted articles. We concluded that there appears to have been a change in the publication policies of journals, which resulted in an increase in scientific retractions related to COVID-19 during the study period.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47265,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethics & Behavior\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethics & Behavior\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2022.2080067\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics & Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2022.2080067","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要本研究旨在概述2020年至2021年间Scopus数据库索引期刊上发表的关于新冠肺炎的科学文章的撤回情况。为了分析数据,我们使用了文献计量技术,包括R-Studio软件中的Bibliometrix包和描述性统计。对29篇撤回文章进行了分析,我们发现撤回文章最常见的原因与道德问题有关,68.97%的作者以前撤回过文章。我们得出的结论是,期刊的出版政策似乎发生了变化,这导致研究期间与新冠肺炎相关的科学撤回增加。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
“Research exceptionalism” in the COVID-19 pandemic: an analysis of scientific retractions in Scopus
ABSTRACT This study aimed to outline the profile of retractions of scientific articles on COVID-19 published in journals indexed in the Scopus database between 2020 and 2021. To analyze the data, we used a bibliometric technique, with the Bibliometrix package in the R-Studio software, and descriptive statistics. Twenty-nine retractions were analyzed, and we found that the most common reasons for retraction were related to ethical issues and that 68.97% of authors have previously retracted articles. We concluded that there appears to have been a change in the publication policies of journals, which resulted in an increase in scientific retractions related to COVID-19 during the study period.
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
Ethics & Behavior
Ethics & Behavior Multiple-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
38
×
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