Self-correction in biomedical publications and the scientific impact
Reads0
Chats0
TLDR
The study suggests that the intensified self-correction in biomedicine is due to the attention of readers and authors, who spot errors in their hub of evidence-based information.Abstract:
Aim
To analyze mistakes and misconduct in multidisciplinary and specialized biomedical journals.read more
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Publish or Perish mantra in the medical field: A systematic review of the reasons, consequences and remedies.
Salman Yousuf Guraya,Robert I. Norman,Khalid I. Khoshhal,Shaista Salman Guraya,Antonello Forgione +4 more
TL;DR: This research showed that some universities offer generous grants to researchers with a high h-index and with more publications in elite journals, which promise an enhanced prospect of citations and elevation in the scientific rankings of the funding institutions.
Journal ArticleDOI
Integrity of Authorship and Peer Review Practices: Challenges and Opportunities for Improvement.
TL;DR: There is a need to generate greater awareness, especially in authors from non-English speaking regions of the world, about inappropriate authorship and unethical practices in peer review, and support of any external editing agency should be clearly disclosed by authors at the time of submission of a manuscript.
Journal ArticleDOI
Retraction of publications in nursing and midwifery research: A systematic review
Amal Al-Ghareeb,Stav Amichai Hillel,Lisa McKenna,Michelle Cleary,Denis Visentin,Martin Jones,Daniel Bressington,Richard Gray +7 more
TL;DR: Compared to more established academic disciplines, rates of retraction in nursing and midwifery are low, which may indicate that unsound research is not being identified and that the checks and balances incumbent in the scientific method are not working.
Journal ArticleDOI
Innovative Strategies for Peer Review
TL;DR: An overview of the innovative strategies for peer review is given and perspectives that may be helpful in introducing changes to peer review are considered to help bridge gaps in an imperfect but indispensable peer review system.
Journal ArticleDOI
Integrity of clinical research conduct, reporting, publishing, and post-publication promotion in rheumatology.
TL;DR: The number of rheumatology journals, and papers related to this specialty, is expanding every day, and careful consideration for ethical aspects of such published work is mandatory for authors, readers, reviewers, editors, and all stakeholders.
References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications
TL;DR: A detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012 revealed that only 21.3% of retractions were attributable to error, compared with 67.4% attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud, duplicate publication, and plagiarism.
Journal ArticleDOI
Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: a case study
TL;DR: There is no evidence of the impact of duplicate data on meta-analysis, and 17% of systematically searched randomised trials of ondansetron as a postoperative antiemetic were covert duplicates and resulted in 28% of patient data being duplicated.
Journal ArticleDOI
Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased
TL;DR: Lower barriers to publication of flawed articles are seen in the increase in number and proportion of retractions by authors with a single retraction and an increase in retraction for “new” offenses such as plagiarism and a decrease in the time-to-retraction of flawed work.
Posted Content
Deep Impact: Unintended consequences of journal rank
Björn Brembs,Marcus R. Munafò +1 more
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present the most recent and pertinent data on the consequences of our current scholarly communication system with respect to various measures of scientific quality (such as utility/citations, methodological soundness, expert ratings or retractions).