Next Article in Journal
A Study of Social Information Seeking (SIS) among LIS Research Scholars in Pakistan
Next Article in Special Issue
Substandard Journal Management: Wastage of Authors’ Motivation
Previous Article in Journal / Special Issue
Advancing Scientific Knowledge: Ethical Issues in the Journal Publication Process
Article Menu
Issue 1 (March) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Publications 2018, 6(1), 2; doi:10.3390/publications6010002

Retraction Notices: Who Authored Them?

1
School of Foreign Studies, Huanggang Normal University, Huanggang 438000, China
2
Department of English, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 29 November 2017 / Revised: 23 December 2017 / Accepted: 2 January 2018 / Published: 3 January 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Scientific Ethics)
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [886 KB, uploaded 4 January 2018]   |  

Abstract

Unlike other academic publications whose authorship is eagerly claimed, the provenance of retraction notices (RNs) is often obscured presumably because the retraction of published research is associated with undesirable behavior and consequently carries negative consequences for the individuals involved. The ambiguity of authorship, however, has serious ethical ramifications and creates methodological problems for research on RNs that requires clear authorship attribution. This article reports a study conducted to identify RN textual features that can be used to disambiguate obscured authorship, ascertain the extent of authorship evasion in RNs from two disciplinary clusters, and determine if the disciplines varied in the distributions of different types of RN authorship. Drawing on a corpus of 370 RNs archived in the Web of Science for the hard discipline of Cell Biology and the soft disciplines of Business, Finance, and Management, this study has identified 25 types of textual markers that can be used to disambiguate authorship, and revealed that only 25.68% of the RNs could be unambiguously attributed to authors of the retracted articles alone or jointly and that authorship could not be determined for 28.92% of the RNs. Furthermore, the study has found marked disciplinary differences in the different categories of RN authorship. These results point to the need for more explicit editorial requirements about RN authorship and their strict enforcement. View Full-Text
Keywords: academic misconduct; authorship marker; disciplinary variation; evasion of authorship; retraction notice academic misconduct; authorship marker; disciplinary variation; evasion of authorship; retraction notice
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Xu, S.B.; Hu, G. Retraction Notices: Who Authored Them? Publications 2018, 6, 2.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Publications EISSN 2304-6775 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top