matzlx的个人博客分享 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/u/matzlx

博文

这样也可以发SCI ?

已有 3384 次阅读 2016-9-28 08:27 |系统分类:观点评述

沈阳 的三位研究人员统计发现%74的因假评审而撤稿的文章来自中国。

该文在Retraction Watch 被评论。


Postgrad Med J. 2016 Sep 23. pii: postgradmedj-2016-133969. doi: 10.1136/postgradmedj-2016-133969. [Epub ahead of print]

Characteristics of retractions related to faked peer reviews: an overview.
Abstract

A faked peer review is a novel cause for retraction. We reviewed the characteristics of papers retracted due to a faked peer review. All papers retracted due to faked peer reviews were identified by searching the Retraction Watch website and by conducting a manual search. All identified papers were confirmed in published journals. The information of retracted papers was collected, which primarily included publisher, journal, journal impact factor, country, as well as publication and retraction year. Overall, 250 retracted papers were identified. They were published in 48 journals by six publishers. The top 5 journals included the Journal of Vibration and Control (24.8%), Molecular Biology Reports (11.6%), Immunopharmacology and Immunotoxicology (8.0%), Tumour Biology (6.8%) and European Journal of Medical Research (6.4%). The publishers included SAGE (31%), Springer (26%), BioMed Central (18%), Elsevier (13%), Informa (11%) and LWW (1%). A minority (4%) of retracted papers were published in Science Citation Index (SCI) journals with an impact factor of >5. A majority (74.8%) of retracted papers were written by Chinese researchers. In terms of the publication year, the retracted papers were published since 2010, and the number of retracted papers peaked in 2014 (40.8%). In terms of the retraction year, the retractions started in 2012, and the number of retractions peaked in 2015 (59.6%). The number of papers retracted due to faked peer reviews differs largely among journals and countries. With the improvement of the peer review mechanism and increased education about publishing ethics, such academic misconduct may gradually disappear in future.

Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/




https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2451626-1005484.html

上一篇:史坦福学者论文中有关中国生物医学论文的一个负面数据
下一篇:看Wayne State University是如何处理学术不端
收藏 IP: 137.132.228.*| 热度|

3 杨学祥 王洪吉 dulizhi95

该博文允许实名用户评论 评论 (0 个评论)

数据加载中...
扫一扫,分享此博文

Archiver|手机版|科学网 ( 京ICP备07017567号-12 )

GMT+8, 2024-5-21 18:43

Powered by ScienceNet.cn

Copyright © 2007- 中国科学报社

返回顶部