Maintaining the integrity of published research is paramount in the era of rapid scientific advancements. This discussion explores effective strategies and best practices for publishing scientific papers and handling retractions.
Join the conversation to discuss:
- How can we improve the peer review process to minimize errors in published research?
- What are the best practices for handling retractions to prevent the propagation of flawed data?
- How can we encourage more active post-publication scrutiny and corrections?
Let's collaborate to enhance the quality and reliability of scientific research. Your thoughts and experiences are invaluable.
Also, check out this piece on Nature to learn more about the topic: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-02747-1
Fine article about the issue of best publishing practices.
The COPE / DOAJ / OASPA / WAME Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing: A critical analysis
"Four publishing-related organizations, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), the first being dedicated specifically to the creation and dissemination of ethics policies, established a set of 16 principles related to journal and publisher transparency and “best” publishing practices. The first, second, third and fourth versions were published in 2013, 2015, 2018, and 2022, respectively. Membership of these organizations implies that members can only become such if they satisfy these principles. This paper compares the four versions to appreciate how the content has changed over time, as an historical endeavor to gather how publishing ethics has progressed over time. An assessment is also made to determine whether all principles are related to transparency and best principles, and if any may be missing. We concluded that the 16 principles offer broad guidance to several important aspects related to journal and publishing ethics and management. However, the vast majority are in general excessively broad, occasionally vague, or lack sufficient examples or specifics, despite the slight improvement between versions 3 and 4. We argue further that these weaknesses may limit their practical application. Until September 2022, there was no transparency regarding the consequences for any members that might violate, or not abide by, these principles. In the light of these arguments, we are of the opinion that the 16 principles of “best” publishing practices merit additional improvements..."
Article The COPE / DOAJ / OASPA / WAME Principles of Transparency an...
Regarding retractions, there is recently published book on it, dear Kamyar Amirhosseini .
Retraction Matters
"This book offers the first sustained investigation of the phenomenon of retraction - the “taking back” of the conventional or deontic effects of a previous speech act - bringing together issues and solutions from the semantics of perspectival expressions and from the framework of Speech Act theory. It addresses questions that have been at the center of lively debates in philosophy of language and linguistics, but also draws out some of the ramifications these questions have for certain debates in the logic of discourse, philosophy of mind or experimental philosophy.
Many times, what we say on a certain occasion proves to be wrong. When we realize this, we sometimes react by retracting what was previously said – formally or informally, explicitly or not. The essays in this volume tackle issues such as what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for successfully performing a retraction, whether there is a solid empirical basis for retraction, whether the phenomenon can be used in favor or against certain semantics views, whether there is a type of retraction that is merely verbal, or what are the ethical implications of retraction. The volume brings together and puts in dialogue renowned researchers on these topics, serving both as a fixture for specialists and as an introduction into the topic of retraction..."
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-66081-8
Dear Ljubomir Jacić
Thank you very much for contributing to this discussion.
The resources you shared provide valuable insights on this crucial matter and the readers of the post will benefit from them.
Thank you!
The Rise of the Science Sleuths for the Sake of Scientific Integrity
"A seminal paper in Alzheimer’s research raised red flags. Those who called out the problematic data hoped the discovery would correct the scientific record. Instead, the questions raised about the work highlighted cracks that have been slowly eating away at scientific integrity for years...
The sleuths and other science integrity watchdogs rankled the publishing industry initially. “We certainly had journals tell us basically, go fuck off, we don’t have to answer to you” said Marcus. “That doesn’t happen quite so much anymore.” Still, editors remain wary of PubPeer, which has increasingly become a forum for catching misdeeds rather than discussing new discoveries, which was its initial purpose..."
https://undark.org/2024/09/11/the-rise-of-the-science-sleuths/
Open letter from fraud sleuths raises concerns over research integrity at Scientific Reports
"Scientific Reports, a journal published by Springer Nature, has been criticised for publishing fraudulent research in an open letter signed by many well-known experts in research fraud. The letter highlights multiple cases where papers have passed peer review despite containing glaring issues, from irrelevant references and ‘tortured phrases’ to nonsensical figures.
The signatories of the letter, including well-known science sleuths Elisabeth Bik, Dorothy Bishop and Guillaume Cabanac, express disappointment over Springer Nature’s ‘inadequate’ response to reports of flawed publications. One notable example cited involved a recently corrected article that had been flagged for containing numerous ‘tortured phrases’, indicative of attempts to bypass plagiarism detection. ‘For it to be negligence would require a remarkable degree of professional incompetence from a handling editor,’ wrote the authors..."
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/open-letter-from-fraud-sleuths-raises-concerns-over-research-integrity-at-scientific-reports/4020398.article
Dear Ljubomir Jacić , apologies for my delayed response to your comments. You've shared some very valuable resources which I am certain the readers of the post will find insightful.
Thank you for enriching this discussion!
Research integrity policies in African HE few and far between
"Research integrity policies across African universities are scarce and have significant gaps, particularly in Northern and Central Africa. Universities in Southern Africa, on the other hand, have the best-established research integrity frameworks, according to a study which analysed the existence of these policies at 283 institutions on the continent...
This is according to a study titled ‘Public Availability of Research Integrity Policies in Leading African Universities’, published in November as a preprint on the multidisciplinary platform Research Square...
The study also indicated that universities must broaden research integrity and ethics guidelines to include specific policies covering critical areas, including allegations of research misconduct, whistle-blowing, and authorship or publication, which is essential for a comprehensive framework of responsible research..."
https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20241204161830479
Research Integrity was the Leading Topic of Conversation at the STM Innovation Day
At the start of every December, The STM Association hosts their innovation and integrity days in London...
"Integrity concerns were heavily reflected in the range of solutions and ideas that were presented on the Innovation Day. That’s not to say that no other issues were being tackled, but research integrity was definitely the hot topic. So in this post, I’m going to break down how the startups and innovators that presented on the day are trying to tackle this particular problem. Broadly, I think they fall into four categories:
- Tools to identify bad content, or sometimes assure good content
- Tools to identify bad actors
- AI-assisted workflow tools to make life easier/quicker for editors and reviewers
- Platforms that integrate workflows and tools...
My hope is that publishers, societies, funders, and institutions can build on the valuable and important work that’s already been done in this space and combine their efforts to ensure the ongoing integrity of the scholarly record."
https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2024/12/17/research-integrity-was-the-leading-topic-of-conversation-at-the-stm-innovation-day/?informz=1&nbd=&nbd_source=informz
Bad trials dim gold-standard reviews’ shine
"A huge study has confirmed concerns that fake or flawed research is polluting medical systematic reviews, which summarize evidence from clinical trials and shape treatment guidelines worldwide. After trawling through 50 systematic reviews from publishers under the umbrella of Cochrane, an organization renowned for its gold-standard reviews of medical evidence, a team of more than 60 researchers reported “some concerns” about 25% of the clinical trials in the reviews, and “serious concerns” about 6% of them. The study is part of an effort to address the problem by creating a short checklist that will help researchers to spot untrustworthy trials...
In the past few years, however, automated software tools have sprung up that can help with some checks. Software such as Imagetwin looks for duplicated images in papers, for instance, and tools such as Signals, Papermill Alarm and Argos raise alarm bells about author retraction records, the studies a paper is citing and other warning signs.
At a meeting in London on 3 December, computer scientist Daniel Acuña at the University of Colorado Boulder described a new tool called Reviewer Zero, which promises to check for statistical inconsistencies as well as image manipulation..."
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-04206-3
Emerging Trends in Retractions and How Cabells Helps Safeguard Research Integrity
"The growing number of retracted articles in academic publishing has become a pressing concern. While retractions are essential for correcting the scholarly record, their increase reflects deeper challenges in maintaining research integrity, a core mission for Cabells. At the forefront of addressing these issues, Cabells empowers the scholarly community with tools and insights to combat misconduct and uphold publishing standards...
Cabells addresses the challenges of retractions head-on with our tools and guidance for safeguarding scholarly publishing. Here’s how:
- Journalytics Academic / Journalytics Medicine
- Predatory Reports
- Education and Awareness
- Metrics for Trustworthy Publishing..."
https://blog.cabells.com/2024/12/19/emerging-trends-in-retractions-and-how-cabells-helps-safeguard-research-integrity/
‘WithdrarXiv’ database of 14,000 retracted preprints launches
A trove of data is providing insights into the main reasons studies are pulled from the arXiv preprint platform...
"Researchers have launched ‘WithdrarXiv’ — a database of more than 14,000 studies that have been withdrawn from the preprint server arXiv. They hope to spur the creation of automated tools that flag potential errors to researchers before they submit manuscripts, says Delip Rao, computer scientist and co-author of a preprint describing the tool. But don’t conflate these with retractions in peer-reviewed journals: for one thing, almost all cases of withdrawals on arXiv are initiated by the authors themselves. “The impetus to publish on preprint servers is to be the first, and not necessarily to be completely correct,” says human-anatomy researcher Vedran Katavić..."
https://us17.campaign-archive.com/?e=368527813a&u=2c6057c528fdc6f73fa196d9d&id=1cb8a440c1
Ljubomir Jacić Thank you! Your contributions have been invaluable.
'Zombie facts' live on after black plastic and other studies get corrected or retracted
Corrections take time and rarely get the attention that the original finding did...
"Though regrettable, errors happen, including in studies that have been peer-reviewed. They can range from a typo or miscalculation that gets a correction, to mistakes so large the paper is retracted, to rare but full-blown fraud. The promise of the scientific process is that by exposing work to the scrutiny of others, any problems will be corrected over time...
"Honest scientists admit mistakes, because accurate reporting by scientists, and by peer-reviewed journals that publish science, is the sine qua non of science," meaning it is indispensable to the field...
Despite the challenges, Oransky said he still believes the scientific method is the best way to understand the world better and to try to get closer to whatever the truth is..."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/corrections-retractions-1.7428260
Retractions and Withdrawals in Clinical Cardiovascular Literature: Analysis of the Retraction Watch Database
"Scientific misconduct is a growing concern in clinical research due to the risk of propagating false or inaccurate information. Retractions and withdrawals help preserve the integrity of scientific literature by removing publications with significant flaws, errors, or unreliable conclusions. Prior studies indicate a growing trend in retractions across fields, including clinical medicine. We aimed to analyze recent temporal trends and characteristics of retractions and withdrawals in clinical cardiovascular literature."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772963X25002200
New COPE retraction guidelines address paper mills, third parties, and more
"New retraction guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics include more specific details about when to retract a paper, many of which address paper mill activity. For instance, journals should retract articles when “authorship of the publication cannot be verified or there are serious concerns about accountability for the research,” according to the updated guidance, released today.
COPE also recommends retracting papers with “any form of misrepresentation,” including “deception; fraud (eg, a paper mill); identity theft or fictitious authorship; or undisclosed involvement of artificial intelligence (AI).” ..."
https://retractionwatch.com/2025/09/04/new-cope-retraction-guidelines-address-paper-mills-third-parties-and-more/
The principles and mechanisms outlined in this article can be adapted to address similar challenges in research integrity across various countries and academic environments, making it a promising tool for improving research integrity and accountability worldwide.
Reckoning with Retractions in Research Funding Reviews: The Case of China
"China’s retraction crisis has raised concerns about research integrity and accountability within its scientific community and beyond. To address this issue, we proposed in an earlier publication that Chinese research funders incorporate retraction records into the evaluation of research funding applications by establishing a retraction-based review system. This review system would debar researchers with retraction records from applying for funding for a specified period. However, our earlier proposal lacked practical guidance on how to operationalize such a review system. In this article, we expand on our proposal by fleshing out the proposed ten debarment determinants and offering a framework for quantifying the duration of funding ineligibility. Additionally, we outline the critical steps for implementing the retraction-based review system, address the major challenges to its effective and sustainable adoption, and propose viable solutions to these challenges. Finally, we discuss the benefits of implementing the review system, emphasizing its potential to strengthen research integrity and foster a culture of accountability in the Chinese academic community."
https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/13/3/41
India rankings penalise retractions for the first time
For the first time since it was launched 10 years ago, India’s recently released national university rankings introduced penalties for research paper retractions – the first ranking system, national or global, to do so. But exactly how such penalties affect this year’s ranking is unclear...
https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20250905124537854
- Badges
- Science topic