Influence of different journal publishing models in the presence and detection of scientific errors and misconduct

• Ortega Priego, Jose Luis ^[1] ; Delgado-Quirós, Lorena ^[1]
  1. [1] Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas

     Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas

     Madrid, España

     
• Localización: Revista española de documentación científica, ISSN-e 1988-4621, ISSN 0210-0614, Vol. 46, Nº. 4 (Revista Española de Documentación Científica), 2023
• Idioma: inglés
• DOI: 10.3989/redc.2023.4.1417
• Títulos paralelos:
  • La influencia de diferentes modelos de publicación en la presencia y detección de errores y fraude científico
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo
• Dialnet Métricas: 1 Cita
• Resumen
  • español

    Este estudio pretende comprobar cómo diferentes modelos de publicación de revistas científica pueden favorecer o reducir la incidencia de artículos erróneos o fraudulentos, a la vez que busca medir la respuesta de revistas a estos problemas en función de estos modelos. Para esto, se propone una nueva forma de estudiar el fraude científico en las publicaciones. Los comentarios expresados en PubPeer sobre 17.244 artículos problemáticos fueron comparados con la respuesta editorial de las revistas (i.e. notas editoriales). Las revistas de estas publicaciones fueron clasificadas en función de diferentes criterios editoriales: tipo de editor, tipo de acceso, modelo de financiación y tipo de revisión por pares. Los resultados muestran que a pesar de que las revistas editadas por la academia sufren más de artículos problemáticos, emiten el mismo número de notas editoriales que las revistas comerciales; las revistas de acceso abierto reaccionan mejor ante artículos problemáticos que revistas de pago; revistas de acceso abierto sin APC tienen una incidencia especial de Fraude en la publicación; y revistas que emplean una revisión en abierto sufren menos de fraude científico y ligeramente emiten más notas editoriales.

  • English

    This study attempts to test how different journal publishing models can favor or reduce the presence of errors and misconduct articles, as well as to measure the response of journals to problematic articles according to these publishing models. For this, a new approach for the study of scientific misconduct in publications is proposed. Comments expressed in PubPeer about 17,244 troublesome articles were compared with the editorial response of journals (i.e. editorial notices). Journals of these publications were classified according to several publishing criteria: publisher type, access type, publication fee model and peer review type. The results show that in spite of scholar-published journals suffer more from problematic papers, they release the same editorial notices than commercial journals; open access journals react better to problematic articles than paywall journals; open access journals without APC has a special presence of Publishing fraud; and journals that use open review suffer less from misconduct, slightly releasing more editorial notices.

• Referencias bibliográficas
  • American Society for Cell Biology. (2012). San Francisco declaration on research Assessment (DORA). February 23, 2023. Avalaible at: https://sfdora.org/.
  • Barreiro, E. (2013). Open access: is the scientific quality of biomedical publications threatened?. Archivos de bronconeumologia, 49(12):...
  • Beall, J. (2013). The open-access movement is not really about open access. TripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique, 11(2): 589-597....
  • Boldt, A. (2011). Extending ArXiv.org to achieve open peer review and publishing. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 42(2): 238-242. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.42.2.238
  • Bosman, J., Frantsvåg, J. E., Kramer, B., Langlais, P. C., & Proudman, V. (2021). The OA diamond journals study. Part 1: Findings. Science...
  • Brookes, P. S. (2014). Internet publicity of data problems in the bioscience literature correlates with enhanced corrective action.PeerJ,...
  • Crawford, W. (2021). Gold Open Access 2015-2020 Articles in Journals (GOA6); Cites & Insights Books, 245. CA: Livermore.
  • Cokol, M., Iossifov, I., Rodriguez‐Esteban, R., & Rzhetsky, A. (2007). How many scientific papers should be retracted? EMBO reports, 8(5):...
  • COPE (2012). Code of Conduct and best practice guidelines for journal editors. Available at: http://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors.pdf....
  • Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications.Proceedings...
  • Gao, J., & Zhou, T. (2017). Stamp out fake peer review. Nature, 546(7656): 33-33. https://doi.org/10.1038/546033a PMid:28569809
  • Lei, L., & Zhang, Y. (2018). Lack of improvement in scientific integrity: An analysis of WoS retractions by Chinese researchers (1997-2016)....
  • Hadi, M. A. (2016). Fake peer-review in research publication: revisiting research purpose and academic integrity. International Journal of...
  • Hawkes, N. (2015). Nature journal's plan to fast track paper for a fee prompts resignation from editorial board. British Medical Journal,...
  • Martín-Martín, A., Costas, R., van Leeuwen, T., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2018). Evidence of open access of scientific publications in Google...
  • Marusic, A., Katavic, V., & Marusic, M. (2007). Role of editors and journals in detecting and preventing scientific misconduct: strengths,...
  • Morris, S. (2007). Mapping the journal publishing landscape: how much do we know?. Learned Publishing, 20(4): 299-310. https://doi.org/10.1087/095315107X239654
  • Nath, S. B., Marcus, S. C., & Druss, B. G. (2006). Retractions in the research literature: misconduct or mistakes?Medical Journal of Australia,...
  • Neale, A. V., Northrup, J., Dailey, R., Marks, E., & Abrams, J. (2007). Correction and use of biomedical literature affected by scientific...
  • Ortega, J. L. (2022), Classification and analysis of PubPeer comments: How a web journal club is used. Journal of the Association for Information...
  • Ortega, J. L., & Delgado-Quirós, L. (2023). How do journals deal with problematic articles? The editorial response of journals to articles...
  • Peterson, G. M. (2013). Characteristics of retracted open access biomedical literature: A bibliographic analysis. Journal of the American...
  • Piwowar, H., Priem, J., Larivière, V., Alperin, J. P., Matthias, L., Norlander, B., & Haustein, S. (2018). The state of OA: a large-scale...
  • Resnik, D. B., Patrone, D., & Peddada, S. (2010). Research misconduct policies of social science journals and impact factor. Accountability...
  • Resnik, D. B., & Dinse, G. E. (2013). Scientific retractions and corrections related to misconduct findings. Journal of medical ethics,...
  • Shah, T. A., Gul, S., Bashir, S., Ahmad, S., Huertas, A., Oliveira, A., & Chakraborty, K. (2021). Influence of accessibility (open and...
  • Schmidt B, Ross-Hellauer T, van Edig X & Moylan EC. Ten considerations for open peer review [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research...
  • da Silva, J. A. T., & Vuong, Q. H. (2021). Do legitimate publishers benefit or profit from error, misconduct or fraud?. Exchanges: The...
  • Steen, R. G. (2011). Retractions in the scientific literature: do authors deliberately commit research fraud?Journal of medical ethics,37(2),...
  • Stricker, J., & Günther, A. (2019). Scientific misconduct in psychology. Zeitschrift für Psychologie. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000356
  • Thelwall, M. (2023). Journal and disciplinary variations in academic open peer review anonymity, outcomes, and length. Journal of Librarianship...
  • Tripathi, M., Sonkar, S., & Kumar, S. (2019). A cross sectional study of retraction notices of scholarly journals of science. DESIDOC...
  • Vuong, Q. H. (2020). The limitations of retraction notices and the heroic acts of authors who correct the scholarly record: An analysis of...
  • Wager, E. (2007). What do journal editors do when they suspect research misconduct. Medicine and Law, 26(3), 535.
  • Wang, T., Xing, Q. R., Wang, H., & Chen, W. (2019). Retracted publications in the biomedical literature from open access journals. Science...
  • Ware, M., & Mabe, M. (2015). The STM Report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing. Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly...
  • Williams, P, & Wager E (2011) Exploring why and how journal editors retract articles: findings from a qualitative study. Science and Engineering...