La influencia de diferentes modelos de publicación en la presencia y detección de errores y fraude científico

Jose Luis Ortega Priego; Lorena Delgado-Quirós

doi:10.3989/redc.2023.4.1417

Autores/as

Jose Luis Ortega Priego Institute for Advanced Social Studies (IESA), Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9857-1511
Lorena Delgado-Quirós Institute for Advanced Social Studies (IESA), Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8738-7276

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2023.4.1417

Palabras clave:

PubPeer, fraude científico, editores académicos, acceso abierto, revisión en abierto, notas editoriales

Resumen

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.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Citas

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): 505-506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arbr.2013.10.003

Beall, J. (2013). The open-access movement is not really about open access. TripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique, 11(2): 589-597. https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v11i2.525

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 Europe. February 23, 2023 Available at: https://munin.uit.no/handle/10037/22224.

Brookes, P. S. (2014). Internet publicity of data problems in the bioscience literature correlates with enhanced corrective action.PeerJ, 2, e313. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.313 PMid:24765564 PMCid:PMC3994617

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): 422-423. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7400970 PMid:17471252 PMCid:PMC1866214

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. [February 23, 2023].

Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(42): 17028-17033. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212247109 PMid:23027971 PMCid:PMC3479492

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). Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(5): 1409-1420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9962-7 PMid:28889329

Hadi, M. A. (2016). Fake peer-review in research publication: revisiting research purpose and academic integrity. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice, 24(5), 309-310. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijpp.12307 PMid:27623702

Hawkes, N. (2015). Nature journal's plan to fast track paper for a fee prompts resignation from editorial board. British Medical Journal, 350, h1761. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h1761 PMid:25829179

Martín-Martín, A., Costas, R., van Leeuwen, T., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2018). Evidence of open access of scientific publications in Google Scholar: A large-scale analysis. Journal of informetrics, 12(3): 819-841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.06.012

Marusic, A., Katavic, V., & Marusic, M. (2007). Role of editors and journals in detecting and preventing scientific misconduct: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. Medicine & Law, 26: 545.

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, 185(3): 152-154. https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.2006.tb00504.x PMid:16893357

Neale, A. V., Northrup, J., Dailey, R., Marks, E., & Abrams, J. (2007). Correction and use of biomedical literature affected by scientific misconduct. Science and engineering ethics, 13(1): 5-24.

Ortega, J. L. (2022), Classification and analysis of PubPeer comments: How a web journal club is used. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24568

Ortega, J. L., & Delgado-Quirós, L. (2023). How do journals deal with problematic articles? The editorial response of journals to articles commented in PubPeer. El profesional de la Información, 32(1). https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2023.ene.18

Peterson, G. M. (2013). Characteristics of retracted open access biomedical literature: A bibliographic analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(12), 2428-2436. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22944

Piwowar, H., Priem, J., Larivière, V., Alperin, J. P., Matthias, L., Norlander, B., & Haustein, S. (2018). The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles. PeerJ, 6, e4375. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4375 PMid:29456894 PMCid:PMC5815332

Resnik, D. B., Patrone, D., & Peddada, S. (2010). Research misconduct policies of social science journals and impact factor. Accountability in research, 17(2): 79-84. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621003641181 PMid:20306350 PMCid:PMC3065865

Resnik, D. B., & Dinse, G. E. (2013). Scientific retractions and corrections related to misconduct findings. Journal of medical ethics, 39(1), 46-50. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2012-100766 PMid:22942373 PMCid:PMC3525741

Shah, T. A., Gul, S., Bashir, S., Ahmad, S., Huertas, A., Oliveira, A., & Chakraborty, K. (2021). Influence of accessibility (open and toll-based) of scholarly publications on retractions. Scientometrics, 126(6), 4589-4606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03990-3

Schmidt B, Ross-Hellauer T, van Edig X & Moylan EC. Ten considerations for open peer review [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2018, 7:969. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15334.1 PMid:30135731 PMCid:PMC6073088

da Silva, J. A. T., & Vuong, Q. H. (2021). Do legitimate publishers benefit or profit from error, misconduct or fraud?. Exchanges: The Interdisciplinary Research Journal, 8(3), 55-68. https://doi.org/10.31273/eirj.v8i3.785

Steen, R. G. (2011). Retractions in the scientific literature: do authors deliberately commit research fraud?Journal of medical ethics,37(2), 113-117. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2010.038125 PMid:21081306

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 and Information Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006221079345

Tripathi, M., Sonkar, S., & Kumar, S. (2019). A cross sectional study of retraction notices of scholarly journals of science. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 39(2), 74-81. https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.39.2.14000

Vuong, Q. H. (2020). The limitations of retraction notices and the heroic acts of authors who correct the scholarly record: An analysis of retractions of papers published from 1975 to 2019. Learned Publishing, 33(2), 119-130. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1282

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 and engineering ethics, 25(3), 855-868. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0040-6 PMid:29516389

Ware, M., & Mabe, M. (2015). The STM Report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing. Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc. 9. Available at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom/9.

Williams, P, & Wager E (2011) Exploring why and how journal editors retract articles: findings from a qualitative study. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9292-0 PMid:21761244