J Korean Med Sci.  2021 Jun;36(24):e165. 10.3346/jkms.2021.36.e165.

Retractions, Fake Peer Reviews, and Paper Mills

• Rivera H
• da Silva JAT

• KMID: 2516765
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2021.36.e165

Reference

1. Oransky I. Volunteer watchdogs pushed a small country up the rankings. Science. 2018; 362(6413):395. PMID: 30361356.

2. Tang L, Hu G, Sui Y, Yang Y, Cao C. Retraction: the “other face” of research collaboration? Sci Eng Ethics. 2020; 26(3):1681–1708. PMID: 32215814.

3. Brainard J. Rethinking retractions. Science. 2018; 362(6413):390–393. PMID: 30361352.

4. Campos-Varela I, Ruano-Raviña A. Misconduct as the main cause for retraction. A descriptive study of retracted publications and their authors. Gac Sanit. 2019; 33(4):356–360. PMID: 29776690.

5. Bhatt B. A multi-perspective analysis of retractions in life sciences. Scientometrics. 2021; 126(5):4039–4054.

6. Misra DP, Ravindran V, Agarwal V. Integrity of authorship and peer review practices: challenges and opportunities for improvement. J Korean Med Sci. 2018; 33(46):e287. PMID: 30416407.

7. Qi X, Deng H, Guo X. Characteristics of retractions related to faked peer reviews: an overview. Postgrad Med J. 2017; 93(1102):499–503. PMID: 27663911.

8. Kamali N, Talebi Bezmin Abadi A, Rahimi F. Plagiarism, fake peer-review, and duplication: predominant reasons underlying retractions of Iran-affiliated scientific papers. Sci Eng Ethics. 2020; 26(6):3455–3463. PMID: 33146787.

9. Voung QH, La LV, Hồ MT, Vuong TT, Ho MT. Characteristics of retracted articles based on retraction data from online sources through February 2019. Sci Ed. 2020; 7(1):34–44.

10. Wang T, Xing QR, Wang H, Chen W. Retracted publications in the biomedical literature from open access journals. Sci Eng Ethics. 2019; 25(3):855–868. PMID: 29516389.

11. Chen W, Xing QR, Wang H, Wang T. Retracted publications in the biomedical literature with authors from mainland China. Scientometrics. 2018; 114(1):217–227.

12. Lei L, Zhang Y. Lack of improvement in scientific integrity: an analysis of WoS retractions by Chinese researchers (1997–2016). Sci Eng Ethics. 2018; 24(5):1409–1420. PMID: 28889329.

13. Stavale R, Ferreira GI, Galvão JA, Zicker F, Novaes MR, Oliveira CM, et al. Research misconduct in health and life sciences research: a systematic review of retracted literature from Brazilian institutions. PLoS One. 2019; 14(4):e0214272. PMID: 30986211.

14. Rossouw TM, Matsau L, van Zyl C. An analysis of retracted articles with authors or co-authors from the African region: possible implications for training and awareness raising. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2020; 15(5):478–493. PMID: 32917117.

15. Rivera H. Fake peer review and inappropriate authorship are real evils. J Korean Med Sci. 2018; 34(2):e6. PMID: 30636943.

16. Peterson GM. Characteristics of retracted open access biomedical literature: a bibliographic analysis. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2013; 64(12):2428–2436.

17. Tripathi M, Sonkar SK, Kumar S. A cross sectional study of retraction notices of scholarly journals of science. DESIDOC J Libr Inf Technol. 2019; 39(2):74–81.

18. Moylan EC, Kowalczuk MK. Why articles are retracted: a retrospective cross-sectional study of retraction notices at BioMed Central. BMJ Open. 2016; 6(11):e012047.

19. Cortegiani A, Catalisano G, Ippolito M, Giarratano A, Absalom AR, Einav S. Retracted papers on SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. Br J Anaesth. 2021; 126(4):e155–6. PMID: 33581852.

20. Giles J. Open-access journal will publish first, judge later. Nature. 2007; 445(7123):9. PMID: 17203032.

21. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Akazhanov NA, Kitas GD. Self-correction in biomedical publications and the scientific impact. Croat Med J. 2014; 55(1):61–72. PMID: 24577829.

22. Aguzzi A. ‘Broken access’ publishing corrodes quality. Nature. 2019; 570(7760):139. PMID: 31190018.

23. Teixeira da Silva JA, Tsigaris P, Al-Khatib A. Open access mega-journals: quality, economics and post-publication peer review infrastructure. Publ Res Q. 2019; 35(3):418–435.

24. Martin SJ. The FEBS Journal in 2020: open access and quality versus quantity publishing. FEBS J. 2020; 287(1):4–10. PMID: 31904913.

25. Teixeira da Silva JA. Is there a clear division between predatory and low-quality journals and publishers? J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 2020; 50(4):456–461.

26. Ferguson C, Marcus A, Oransky I. Publishing: the peer-review scam. Nature. 2014; 515(7528):480–482. PMID: 25428481.

27. Walsh JP, Lee YN, Tang L. Pathogenic organization in science: division of labor and retractions. Res Policy. 2019; 48(2):444–461.

28. Hesselmann F, Graf V, Schmidt M, Reinhart M. The visibility of scientific misconduct: a review of the literature on retracted journal articles. Curr Sociol. 2017; 65(6):814–845. PMID: 28943647.

29. Byrne JA, Christopher J. Digital magic, or the dark arts of the 21st century-how can journals and peer reviewers detect manuscripts and publications from paper mills? FEBS Lett. 2020; 594(4):583–589. PMID: 32067229.

30. Teixeira da Silva JA. Paper mills and on-demand publishing: risks to the integrity of journal indexing and metrics. Med J Armed Forces India. 2021; 77(1):119–120. PMID: 33100486.

31. Zhao TY, Dai TC, Lun ZJ, Gao YL. An analysis of recently retracted articles by authors affiliated with hospitals in mainland China. J Sch Publ. 2021; 52(2):107–122.

32. Hvistendahl M. Academic misconduct. China pursues fraudsters in science publishing. Science. 2015; 350(6264):1015. PMID: 26612929.

33. Else H, Van Noorden R. The fight against fake-paper factories that churn out sham science. Nature. 2021; 591(7851):516–519. PMID: 33758408.

34. Teixeira da Silva JA. Is the validity, credibility and reliability of literature indexed in PubMed at risk? Med J Armed Forces India. Forthcoming. 2021.

35. Teixeira da Silva JA. Fake peer reviews, fake identities, fake accounts, fake data: beware! AME Med J. 2017; 2(3):28.

36. Teixeira da Silva JA. Assessing the ethics of stings, including from the prism of guidelines by ethics-promoting organizations (COPE, ICMJE, CSE). Publ Res Q. 2021; 37(1):90–98.

37. Wager E, Kleinert S. CLUE Working Group. Cooperation & Liaison between Universities & Editors (CLUE): recommendations on best practice. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2021; 6(1):6. PMID: 33853690.

38. Teixeira da Silva JA, Al-Khatib A. Ending the retraction stigma: encouraging the reporting of errors in the biomedical record. Res Ethics Rev. 2021; 17(2):251–259.

39. Rivera H. Authorship malpractices in developing countries. Cent Asian J Med Hypotheses Ethics. 2020; 1(1):69–74.

40. Haug CJ. Peer-review fraud — hacking the scientific publication process. N Engl J Med. 2015; 373(25):2393–2395. PMID: 26488392.

41. Teixeira da Silva JA, Vuong QH. Do legitimate publishers benefit or profit from error, misconduct or fraud? Exchanges. 2021; 8(3):55–68.

42. Dobránszki J, Teixeira da Silva JA. Corrective factors for author- and journal-based metrics impacted by citations to accommodate for retractions. Scientometrics. 2019; 121(1):387–398.

43. Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Voronov AA, Koroleva AM, Kitas GD. Updated editorial guidance for quality and reliability of research output. J Korean Med Sci. 2018; 33(35):e247. PMID: 30140192.