The impact of affiliation naming proximity on the retrieval efficiency of Chinese universities-affiliated retractions in the Retraction Watch Database.

The Retraction Watch Database (RWDB) is widely used to retrieve retraction data. However, its lack of affiliation normalization hinders the retrieval efficiency of retraction data for specific research-performing organizations. A query for a university name in the RWDB may yield retraction data entries for other universities with similar names, giving rise to the issue of affiliation naming proximity. This study assessed the impact of this issue on the retrieval efficiency of retraction records for 2,692 Chinese university names in English. The analysis revealed that the retrieval efficiency of retraction records for 206 Chinese university names can be influenced by 408 university names. As of 2022, the retrieval efficiency of retraction records for 96 Chinese university names was compromised by the involvement of 402 university names, resulting in an overall retraction inflation rate of 37.9% and an average rate of 45.0%. The findings highlight the importance of curating retraction data through affiliation-specific queries in the RWDB, adhering to the official English names of Chinese universities for scholarly publishing, and adopting the Research Organization Registry system for affiliation disambiguation. Given the significance of this issue concerning the English names of universities in non-English-speaking countries, the identified causes of the problem and proposed solutions can offer valuable insights for improving the retrieval of retraction records for non-Chinese universities in the RWDB.

Rethinking the author name ambiguity problem and beyond: The case of the Chinese context.

The perennial problem of author name ambiguity has attracted increasing attention in the academic community. Drawing on the literature, this article first highlights the pervasiveness of the problem and discusses its adverse consequences. It then analyzes the behavioral causes of the problem in the Chinese context and attributes them to personal, cultural, and institutional factors. Informed by this analysis and recognizing ORCID as a promising solution, we propose an ORCID-based "Prevention plus Cure" campaign against author name ambiguity. The prevention objective relies on researchers' consistent use of ORCID, while the cure objective involves retrospectively integrating ORCIDs into backfile publications. We also outline the responsibilities of various stakeholders to ensure the success of the campaign. Furthermore, we argue that universal adoption of ORCID can help curb authorship-related misconduct, discern predatory journals and publishers, and track researchers' undesirable records of academic publishing. We then analyze the current status of ORCID adoption in China, identify potential challenges, propose tentative solutions to address them, and highlight ORCID as a tool that can be utilized to empower China's combat against research misconduct. In conclusion, we emphasize the importance of conducting empirical research to inform more effective promotion of ORCID adoption in China.

What do Retraction Notices Reveal About Institutional Investigations into Allegations Underlying Retractions?

Academic journal publications may be retracted following institutional investigations that confirm allegations of research misconduct. Retraction notices can provide insight into the role institutional investigations play in the decision to retract a publication. Through a content analysis of 7,318 retraction notices published between 1927 and 2019 and indexed by the Web of Science, we found that most retraction notices (73.7%) provided no information about institutional investigations that may have led to retractions. A minority of the retraction notices (26.3%) mentioned an institutional investigation either by journal authorities (12.1%), research performing organizations (10.3%), joint institutions (1.9%), research integrity and ethics governing bodies (1.0%), third-party institutions (0.5%), unspecified institutions (0.4%), or research funding organizations (0.1%). Comparing retraction notices issued before and after the introduction of retraction guidelines by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in 2009 revealed that those published after the guidelines' publication were more likely to report investigations by journal authorities. Comparing retraction notices from different disciplines revealed that those from social sciences and the humanities were more likely to disclose investigations by research performing organizations than those from biomedical and natural sciences. Based on these findings, we suggest that the COPE retraction guidelines in the future make it mandatory to disclose in retraction notices institutional investigations leading to retractions.

A cross-disciplinary and severity-based study of author-related reasons for retraction.

Previous research has found authors of retracted publications responsible for the vast majority of retractions. Although considerable research attention has been given to reasons for retraction, few studies have examined author-related reasons from a cross-disciplinary and a severity-based perspective. Drawing on data from the Web of Science Core Collection, this study examined 6,861 retraction notices published before 2020, in which authors were identified as the sole entities responsible for retraction. A close scrutiny identified 17 distinct reasons for retraction, with the three most frequent (i.e., plagiarism/self-plagiarism, unreliable data/findings, and data fabrication/falsification) accounting for 78.87% of the retraction notices. Based on the severity of the culpable actions involved, the 17 reasons were grouped into five categories: blatant misconduct (disclosed in 61.08% of the retraction notices), inappropriate conduct (18.18%), questionable conduct (0.95%), honest error (4.62%), and uncategorizable conduct (30.52%). Retraction notices in hard disciplines (i.e., natural sciences) were found more likely than those in soft disciplines (i.e., social sciences, arts, and the humanities) to disclose authorship issues, unreliable data/findings, uncategorizable conduct, and inappropriate conduct. Retraction notices in soft disciplines were more likely than those in hard disciplines to disclose unspecified misconduct and blatant misconduct.