本文对国际科学计量学杂志《Ｓｃｉｅｎｔｏｍｅｔｒｉｃｓ》１９７９－１９９１年的研究论文内容、栏目、作者及国别和编委及国别作了计量分析，揭示出科学计量学研究的重点、活动的中心及发展趋势，说明了学科带头人在发展科学计量学这门新兴学科中的作用。

国际刊物《Scientometrics》文献计量研究

Icmje

China's terrestrial ecosystems have functioned as important carbon sinks. However, previous estimates of carbon budgets have included large uncertainties owing to the limitations of sample size, multiple data sources, and inconsistent methodologies. In this study, we conducted an intensive field campaign involving 14,371 field plots to investigate all sectors of carbon stocks in China's forests, shrublands, grasslands, and croplands to better estimate the regional and national carbon pools and to explore the biogeographical patterns and potential drivers of these pools. The total carbon pool in these four ecosystems was 79.24 ± 2.42 Pg C, of which 82.9% was stored in soil (to a depth of 1 m), 16.5% in biomass, and 0.60% in litter. Forests, shrublands, grasslands, and croplands contained 30.83 ± 1.57 Pg C, 6.69 ± 0.32 Pg C, 25.40 ± 1.49 Pg C, and 16.32 ± 0.41 Pg C, respectively. When all terrestrial ecosystems are taken into account, the country's total carbon pool is 89.27 ± 1.05 Pg C. The carbon density of the forests, shrublands, and grasslands exhibited a strong correlation with climate: it decreased with increasing temperature but increased with increasing precipitation. Our analysis also suggests a significant sequestration potential of 1.9-3.4 Pg C in forest biomass in the next 10-20 years assuming no removals, mainly because of forest growth. Our results update the estimates of carbon pools in China's terrestrial ecosystems based on direct field measurements, and these estimates are essential to the validation and parameterization of carbon models in China and globally.

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/115/16/4021.full.pdf

Carbon pools in China's terrestrial ecosystems: New estimates based on an intensive field survey

Articles may be retracted when their findings are no longer considered trustworthy due to scientific misconduct or error, they plagiarize previously published work, or they are found to violate ethical guidelines. Using a novel measure that we call the “retraction index,” we found that the frequency of retraction varies among journals and shows a strong correlation with the journal impact factor. Although retractions are relatively rare, the retraction process is essential for correcting the literature and maintaining trust in the scientific process.

Retracted Science and the Retraction Index

As part of a cluster of articles critically reflecting on the theme of "no health without research," Richard Smith and colleagues lay out what is currently known about research misconduct in low- and middle-income countries, summarizing some high profile cases and making suggestions on ways forward.

/pdf/research-misconduct-in-low-and-middle-income-countries-8bxwx4rhk1.pdf

Research misconduct in low- and middle-income countries.

/pdf/chinese-journal-finds-31-of-submissions-plagiarized-x6pgh7nqle.pdf

Chinese journal finds 31% of submissions plagiarized

The purpose of this survey was to investigate journal editors' use of CrossCheck, powered by iThenticate, to detect plagiarism, and their attitude to potential plagiarism once discovered. A 22-question survey was sent to 3,305 recipients, primarily scholarly journal editors from Anglophone countries, and a reduced 10-question version to 607 editors from non-Anglophone countries. The response rate was 5.6%. 42% of all respondents had used CrossCheck in their work. The main findings are as follows: (1) the plagiarism detection tool and its similarity report are extremely useful and effective and can assist editors in screening documents suspected of plagiarism; (2) responses show the journal editors' attitude and level of tolerance towards different kinds of plagiarism in different disciplines; (3) the survey results underscore a clear consensus on editorial standards on plagiarism, but there were small variations between different disciplines and countries, as well as between Anglophone and non-Anglophone. The study also suggests that further work is needed to establish a universal principle and practical approaches to prevent plagiarism and duplicate publication.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1087/20120408

A survey on the use of CrossCheck for detecting plagiarism in journal articles

Conference proceedings are one of the most important forms of communication for computer scientists. This study investigated the policies of a large number of computer science journals with regard to the republication of papers which had already appeared in conference proceedings. Nearly one‐quarter of journal editors would not republish such papers other than in special circumstances (such as a special conference issue), and almost all of the remainder would do so only after substantial updating and expansion of the original paper. Many specified the amount of content that should be new: 30% was the proportion most frequently mentioned. Thus, many sections of text may be identical to the original paper. However, some journal editors do not appear to consider this self‐plagiarism provided the original publication is properly cited. Nevertheless, such (re)publication is likely to lead to high similarity scores in CrossCheck; in this field, therefore, journal editors need to exercise particular discretion when evaluating CrossCheck results.

Republication of conference papers in journals

In papers in areas such as engineering and the physical sciences, figures, tables and formulae are the basic elements to communicate the authors’ core ideas, workings and results. As a computational text-matching tool, CrossCheck cannot work on these non-textual elements to detect plagiarism. Consequently, when comparing engineering or physical sciences papers, CrossCheck may return a low similarity index even when plagiarism has in fact taken place. A case of demonstrated plagiarism involving engineering papers with a low similarity index is discussed, and editor’s experiences and suggestions are given on how to tackle this problem. The case shows a lack of understanding of plagiarism by some authors or editors, and illustrates the difficulty of getting some editors and publishers to take appropriate action. Consequently, authors, journal editors, and reviewers, as well as research institutions all are duty-bound not only to recognize the differences between ethical and unethical behavior in order to protect a healthy research environment, and also to maintain consistent ethical publishing standards.

Detecting and (Not) Dealing with Plagiarism in an Engineering Paper: Beyond CrossCheck—A Case Study

In bioscience papers, besides the other scientific misconduct issues, replication of the method section is a common problem because duplication is always being detected in the section Materials and Methods. We editors often receive comments and queries from authors who think that it is a matter of course to copy their own published materials as opposed to copying those of others. How should editors handle such papers with similar content in the method section and how to guide authors in writing the method section without being accused of plagiarism? What is right? What is wrong? Here we studied an example to explain this problem. Suggestions Moreover, we also quote the useful words of a bio-scientist (Dr. McCanless) who suggested as follows: 1. If using kits and supplier is referenced, then this is enough due to most suppliers providing manuals. 2. If using traditional/homemade methods include following statement: “based on methods previously de- scribed” and include reference(s) as these procedures have all been documented in early chemis- try/biochemistry journals.....this is how we know how to do them. 3. If the procedure is novel or incorporates a novel step to a known method provide details (if the entire procedure is novel then a separate publication based on the method would be justified; if minor alterations are performed then state “based off [on] previously detailed protocols with the exception of...” Provide a reference for basic protocol and detail and innovative changes that were required to complete your experiment). We think the three suggestions would be very useful for the author(s) reference in the biomedicine and bio- technology areas.

/pdf/bilingual-multilingual-publications-and-duplicate-1a5mwre215.pdf

Yuehong Zhang

Papers

Chinese journal finds 31% of submissions plagiarized

A survey on the use of CrossCheck for detecting plagiarism in journal articles

Republication of conference papers in journals

Detecting and (Not) Dealing with Plagiarism in an Engineering Paper: Beyond CrossCheck—A Case Study

Bilingual (multilingual) publications and duplicate publications: for or against?