scholarly journals Recommendations from the Reducing the Inadvertent Spread of Retracted Science: Shaping a Research and Implementation Agenda Project

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jodi Schneider ◽  
Nathan D. Woods ◽  
Randi Proescholdt ◽  
Yuanxi Fu ◽  
The RISRS Team

Retracted research is published work that is withdrawn, removed, or otherwise invalidated from the scientific and scholarly record. This may occur for many different reasons, which can include error, misconduct, or fraud. Retracting research is intended to stop its continued citation and use, but many retracted papers continue to be used.Retracted research that is integrated into the scientific publication network via citations—either before or after retraction—enables the inadvertent propagation of potentially unsupported or fabricated data, fundamental errors, and unreproducible results, or can lead to misattribution of results or ideas (e.g., in cases of retraction due to dual publication, plagiarism, or ownership). Research over the past decade has identified a number of factors contributing to the unintentional spread of retracted research. Many retracted papers are not marked as retracted on publisher and aggregator sites, and retracted articles may still be found in readers’ PDF libraries, including in reference management systems such as Zotero, EndNote, and Mendeley. Most publishers do not systematically surveil bibliographies of submitted manuscripts, and most editors do not query whether a citation to a retracted paper is justified. When citing retracted papers, authors frequently do not indicate retraction status in bibliographies or in-text citations.The goal of the Reducing the Inadvertent Spread of Retracted Science: Shaping a Research and Implementation Agenda (RISRS) project is to develop an actionable agenda for reducing the inadvertent spread of retracted science. This includes identifying how the gatekeepers of scientific publications can monitor and disseminate retraction status and determining what other actions are feasible and relevant.The RISRS process included an exploratory environment scan, a scoping review of empirical literature, and successive rounds of stakeholder consultation, culminating in a three-part online workshop (October 26, November 9, and November 16, 2020) that brought together a diverse body of 70 stakeholders to engage in collaborative problem solving and dialogue. Workshop discussions were seeded by materials derived from stakeholder interviews and short original discussion pieces contributed by stakeholders. The online workshop resulted in a set of recommendations to address the complexities of retracted research throughout the scholarly communications ecosystem. Recommendations were iteratively updated and developed through a series of surveys and drafts as well as at a followup meeting online February 16, 2021.The RISRS team solicited feedback from presentations to NISOPlus, the Society for Scholarly Publishing, and the European Association of Science Editors. Implementation actions have started through a COPE task force on taxonomy and discussions about a proposed National Information Standards Organization (NISO) Work Item. We welcome your feedback via the project website https://infoqualitylab.org/projects/risrs2020/ or by email to [email protected]. We encourage you to disseminate these recommendations and to envision how you, in your role, and in collaborative partnerships, can make a difference. For instance, you might help form a professional working group to further develop or refine these recommendations; present about retraction and related issues at professional and academic meetings; take on an implementation or policy project; or outline further research to be conducted. Recommendations1. Develop a systematic cross-industry approach to ensure the public availability of consistent, standardized, interoperable, and timely information about retractions.2. Recommend a taxonomy of retraction categories/classifications and corresponding retraction metadata that can be adopted by all stakeholders.3. Develop best practices for coordinating the retraction process to enable timely, fair, unbiased outcomes.4. Educate stakeholders about publication correction processes including retraction and about pre- and post-publication stewardship of the scholarly record.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jodi Schneider

Abstract Background: Retraction is a mechanism for alerting readers to unreliable material, effectively removing from the published scientific and scholarly record articles that are deemed to be seriously flawed. Research over the past decade has identified a number of factors contributing to the unintentional spread of retracted research. The goal of the Reducing the Inadvertent Spread of Retracted Science: Shaping a Research and Implementation Agenda (RISRS) project is to develop an actionable agenda for reducing the inadvertent spread of retracted science. This includes identifying how the gatekeepers of scientific publications can monitor and disseminate retraction status and determining what other actions are feasible and relevant. Methods: These recommendations were developed as part of a year-long process that included an exploratory environment scan, a scoping review of empirical literature, and successive rounds of stakeholder consultation, culminating in a three-part online workshop that brought together a diverse body of 70 stakeholders in October-November 2020 to engage in collaborative problem solving and dialogue. Workshop discussions were seeded by materials derived from stakeholder interviews (N=47) and short original discussion pieces contributed by stakeholders. The online workshop resulted in a set of recommendations to address the complexities of retracted research throughout the scholarly communications ecosystem. Results: The RISRS recommendations are: Develop a systematic cross-industry approach to ensure the public availability of consistent, standardized, interoperable, and timely information about retractions. Recommend a taxonomy of retraction categories/classifications and corresponding retraction metadata that can be adopted by all stakeholders. Develop best practices for coordinating the retraction process to enable timely, fair, unbiased outcomes. Educate stakeholders about publication correction processes including retraction and about pre- and post-publication stewardship of the scholarly record. Conclusions: The continued circulation of retracted research is an ecosystem problem. These recommendations focus on areas where stakeholders can collaborate to address the continued citation of retracted research. We have suggested particular actions for standards organizations, publishers, researchers, and research integrity organizations.


2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald D Vale

Scientific publications enable results and ideas to be transmitted throughout the scientific community. The number and type of journal publications also have become the primary criteria used in evaluating career advancement. Our analysis suggests that publication practices have changed considerably in the life sciences over the past thirty years. More experimental data is now required for publication, and the average time required for graduate students to publish their first paper has increased and is approaching the desirable duration of Ph.D. training. Since publication is generally a requirement for career progression, schemes to reduce the time of graduate student and postdoctoral training may be difficult to implement without also considering new mechanisms for accelerating communication of their work. The increasing time to publication also delays potential catalytic effects that ensue when many scientists have access to new information. The time has come for life scientists, funding agencies, and publishers to discuss how to communicate new findings in a way that best serves the interests of the public and the scientific community.


2015 ◽  
Vol 112 (44) ◽  
pp. 13439-13446 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald D. Vale

Scientific publications enable results and ideas to be transmitted throughout the scientific community. The number and type of journal publications also have become the primary criteria used in evaluating career advancement. Our analysis suggests that publication practices have changed considerably in the life sciences over the past 30 years. More experimental data are now required for publication, and the average time required for graduate students to publish their first paper has increased and is approaching the desirable duration of PhD training. Because publication is generally a requirement for career progression, schemes to reduce the time of graduate student and postdoctoral training may be difficult to implement without also considering new mechanisms for accelerating communication of their work. The increasing time to publication also delays potential catalytic effects that ensue when many scientists have access to new information. The time has come for life scientists, funding agencies, and publishers to discuss how to communicate new findings in a way that best serves the interests of the public and the scientific community.


2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 382-389
Author(s):  
Mikhail Mikhailovich Gorbunov-Posadov

The article presents the events that took place last year in the world of Russian scientific publications. There is a slow slide towards paid access of some academic journals turned in open access in 2018. The European Union has announced plan "S" for the mass transition of scientific journals to open access. New models of the scientific publication are introducing. Reporting on publications requested by the Ministry of education and science in 2019 does not take into account the size of the readership of the article. Neither the Ministry of education and science, nor the Higher Attestation Commission (HAC) does not encourage publication in the public domain. In Russian Science Citation Index began the fight against widespread fraudulent trade in references to the article, but the HAC is not interested in this activity. A proliferation of contradictory the term "self-plagiarism" has spread. This label is widely stigmatized authors and journals for repeated publications.


2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 168-178
Author(s):  
Untung Rahardja ◽  
Ninda Lutfiani ◽  
Sindy Amelia

Industry 4.0 is a development trend of intelligent industries where all use of sophisticated equipment and are influenced by technological factors that are developing at this time. The emergence of industry 4.0 affects all aspects of the field including the field of marketing. Marketing is a marketing technique or introducing a product to the public to attract a lot of people. The role of Creative Content is needed in the publication of scientific papers in Industry 4.0. Creative Content can facilitate writers to publish scientific work. Social media is a medium for media creative content in scientific publications. However, the management of online scientific publications or e-journals is still of little use. To achieve Creative Content in scientific publications the need to conduct research or research to find out and obtain information about the role of creative content in scientific publications. The method used in the research is literature study, design, and mind map. Doing research / research is not just going to a place but looking for data in a journal is also needed. This study aims to determine the importance of digital content to improve the dissemination of information on publication management or e-journal in its application within the scope of APTISI Transactions on Management (ATM) journals that have been published online. It can be concluded that the role of creative content in scientific publications is very important, especially in the face of the industrial era 4.0.   Keywords: Industry 4.0, ATM, Marketing.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 829-844 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivan Tarkhanov ◽  
Denis Fomin-Nilov ◽  
Michael Fomin

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to address the problem of content immutability and integrity of online scientific periodicals on the sites of small publishers that can be violated not only by the external hack of the publisher’s site but also by publisher’s and author’s misconduct or by submitting different versions of a periodical to different sites. Design/methodology/approach The authors defined a list of requirements that verify online scientific publications immutability and integrity. Then, the authors analyzed existing projects and recently emerged information on security technologies and identified challenges met during the development and testing. The use of the public blockchain network Ethereum as a secure storage location for data was explained. Findings The authors developed the method of checking online scientific periodicals for immutability and presented ecosystem architecture to control immutability and integrity of data. On the example of the online periodical “Istoriya”, it was demonstrated how the immutability of online scientific publication has been verified with the use of the public blockchain over a six-month period. First, operating results were evaluated; challenges hampering the implementation of the suggested ecosystem on Ethereum now were identified; and potential advantages of the suggested approach as compared to similar projects were discovered. Research limitations/implications The considered prototype is not a ready-to-use system, but in future providing higher transparency and the development of general distributed ecosystem small publishers will have new opportunities for development given that the issues of scalability, reliability and operating speed on a public blockchain will be addressed. Introduction of the described ecosystem may even provoke some changes on such conservative market as that of publishing of academic papers. Originality/value This research is one of the first attempts to expand digital object identifier technology with the use of additional verifications based on the data storage and search in the public blockchain. The suggested idea is the example of “blockchainified science” that was brought to implementation in a real online journal. This method has some advantages compared to Crossmark service.


1989 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 320-332 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Shapiro ◽  
Nelson Moses

This article presents a practical and collegial model of problem solving that is based upon the literature in supervision and cognitive learning theory. The model and the procedures it generates are applied directly to supervisory interactions in the public school environment. Specific principles of supervision and related recommendations for collaborative problem solving are discussed. Implications for public school supervision are addressed in terms of continued professional growth of both supervisees and supervisors, interdisciplinary team functioning, and renewal and retention of public school personnel.


Communicology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 74-88
Author(s):  
D.A. Kemenev

The article investigates the imageological aspect of mentor’s communicative competence in public service and reveals the communicative functions of mentor’s image in relation to the mentees. The author determines the communicative skills necessary for the mentor in all processes and stages of this personnel technology. Based on the analysis of scientific publications, the author discloses and justifies the role models of mentor’s behavior in relation to the mentees from the perspective of the mentor’s image, authority, and communicative competence. The author has conducted an expert survey among public servants, which allowed identify the main professional, business, moral, psychological, and integral qualities that are the most effectively developed by the public servant in the process of performing mentor’s functions. As a result, the author suggests a structural-logical model of the communicative competence of a mentor in the public service in the process of perceiving its communicative knowledge, skills, and competencies for achieving the effectiveness of mentoring.


2007 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louise F. Spiteri

This article examines the linguistic structure of folksonomy tags collected over a thirty-day period from the daily tag logs of Del.icio.us, Furl, and Technorati. The tags were evaluated against the National Information Standards Organization (NISO) guidelines for the construction of controlled vocabularies. The results indicate that the tags correspond closely to the NISO guidelines pertaining to types of concepts expressed, the predominance of single terms and nouns, and the use of recognized spelling. Problem areas pertain to the inconsistent use of count nouns and the incidence of ambiguous tags in the form of homographs, abbreviations, and acronyms. With the addition of guidelines to the construction of unambiguous tags and links to useful external reference sources, folksonomies could serve as a powerful, flexible tool for increasing the user-friendliness and interactivity of public library catalogs, and also may be useful for encouraging other activities, such as informal online communities of readers and user-driven readers’ advisory services.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document