Analysis of Retracted Manuscripts in Chemistry: Errors vs Misconduct
Authors:
Open Access
- 21 August 2023
- journal article
- editorial
- Published by American Chemical Society (ACS) in ACS Omega
- Vol. 8 (35) , 31568-31574
Abstract
In this Viewpoint we discuss Chemistry manuscripts retracted during the 2001-2021 period (a total of 1292 journal articles retrieved from the Retraction Watch database). We showed that 58.5% of Chemistry manuscripts were retracted due to misconduct; of them, 40.5% of retractions were due to self-plagiarism and 36% due to fraud. Errors and concerns unrelated to misconduct constituted 26% of all retractions. Retracted manuscripts had a median retraction time of 1.7 years and peer-review time of 71 days (but only 43 days for fraudulent manuscripts).Keywords
This publication has 59 references indexed in Scilit:
- Why Growing Retractions Are (Mostly) a Good SignPLOS Medicine, 2013
- The San Francisco Declaration on Research AssessmentBiology Open, 2013
- A Comprehensive Survey of Retracted Articles from the Scholarly LiteraturePLOS ONE, 2012
- Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publicationsProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2012
- How journals can prevent, detect and respond to misconductNotfall + Rettungsmedizin, 2011
- The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation IndexScientometrics, 2010
- EditorialActa Crystallographica Section E Structure Reports Online, 2009
- Institutionsʼ Expectations for Researchersʼ Self-Funding, Federal Grant Holding, and Private Industry Involvement: Manifold Drivers of Self-Interest and Researcher BehaviorAcademic Medicine, 2009
- Deja vu: a database of highly similar citations in the scientific literatureNucleic Acids Research, 2008
- Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journalsJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2006