Next Issue
Previous Issue

Table of Contents

Publications, Volume 2, Issue 2 (June 2014), Pages 44-60

  • Issues are regarded as officially published after their release is announced to the table of contents alert mailing list.
  • You may sign up for e-mail alerts to receive table of contents of newly released issues.
  • PDF is the official format for papers published in both, html and pdf forms. To view the papers in pdf format, click on the "PDF Full-text" link, and use the free Adobe Readerexternal link to open them.
View options order results:
result details:
Displaying articles 1-2
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Review

Open AccessArticle The Demographics of Deception: What Motivates Authors Who Engage in Misconduct?
Publications 2014, 2(2), 44-50; doi:10.3390/publications2020044
Received: 9 February 2014 / Revised: 20 March 2014 / Accepted: 21 March 2014 / Published: 28 March 2014
PDF Full-text (188 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
We hypothesized that scientific misconduct (data fabrication or falsification) is goal-directed behavior. This hypothesis predicts that papers retracted for misconduct: are targeted to journals with a high impact factor (IF); are written by authors with additional papers withdrawn for misconduct; diffuse responsibility across
[...] Read more.
We hypothesized that scientific misconduct (data fabrication or falsification) is goal-directed behavior. This hypothesis predicts that papers retracted for misconduct: are targeted to journals with a high impact factor (IF); are written by authors with additional papers withdrawn for misconduct; diffuse responsibility across many (perhaps innocent) co-authors; and are retracted slower than papers retracted for other infractions. These hypotheses were initially tested and confirmed in a database of 788 papers; here we reevaluate these hypotheses in a larger database of 2,047 English-language papers. Journal IF was higher for papers retracted for misconduct (p < 0.0001). Roughly 57% of papers retracted for misconduct were written by a first author with other retracted papers; 21% of erroneous papers were written by authors with >1 retraction (p < 0.0001). Papers flawed by misconduct diffuse responsibility across more authors (p < 0.0001) and are withdrawn more slowly (p < 0.0001) than papers retracted for other reasons. Papers retracted for unknown reasons are unlike papers retracted for misconduct: they are generally published in journals with low IF; by authors with no other retractions; have fewer authors listed; and are retracted quickly. Papers retracted for unknown reasons appear not to represent a deliberate effort to deceive. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Misconduct in Scientific Publishing)

Review

Jump to: Research

Open AccessReview Editorial Misconduct—Definition, Cases, and Causes
Publications 2014, 2(2), 51-60; doi:10.3390/publications2020051
Received: 17 December 2013 / Revised: 25 February 2014 / Accepted: 28 March 2014 / Published: 4 April 2014
Cited by 1 | PDF Full-text (176 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
Though scientific misconduct perpetrated by authors has received much press, little attention has been given to the role of journal editors. This article discusses cases and types of “editorial misconduct”, in which the action or inaction of editorial agents ended in publication of
[...] Read more.
Though scientific misconduct perpetrated by authors has received much press, little attention has been given to the role of journal editors. This article discusses cases and types of “editorial misconduct”, in which the action or inaction of editorial agents ended in publication of fraudulent work and/or poor or failed retractions of such works, all of which ultimately harm scientific integrity and the integrity of the journals involved. Rare but existent, editorial misconduct ranges in severity and includes deliberate omission or ignorance of peer review, insufficient guidelines for authors, weak or disingenuous retraction notices, and refusal to retract. The factors responsible for editorial misconduct and the options to address these are discussed. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Misconduct in Scientific Publishing)

Journal Contact

MDPI AG
Publications Editorial Office
St. Alban-Anlage 66, 4052 Basel, Switzerland
publications@mdpi.com
Tel. +41 61 683 77 34
Fax: +41 61 302 89 18
Editorial Board
Contact Details Submit to Publications
Back to Top