It is generally understood that the reputation of an individual is hurt by a forced retraction, and that impact can last decades. Similarly there’s data that points to the impact affecting all the named coauthors of a retracted paper, not just the guilty parties or first author. The potential for impacts on an entire institution are less clear but are definitely reason for executive-level concern, but the possibility of impacts upon an entire country is apparently worrying enough to prompt a firm response. But is a one-size-fits-all response the answer?
.
Apparently, “fake” peer reviews were behind the latest retractions: Scrutiny of research articles undertaken by third parties were not conducted as independently or impartially as appearances may have suggested.
.
This kind of news, yet again, is really disheartening to the majority of Chinese scientists who rigorously comply with the requirement for ethical research, and it exasperates me. Admittedly, Springer pointed out that research fraud is a global problem; however, China is often singled out.
.
Continuing allegations of research misconduct require system reform – china.org.cn (Richard de Grijs | June 2017)
Posted by saviorteam in Research Integrity on June 17, 2017
Keywords: Analysis, Controversy/Scandal, Fraud, Institutional responsibilities, International, Journal, News, Peer review, Publication ethics, Research integrity, Research results, Researcher responsibilities
Keywords: Analysis, Controversy/Scandal, Fraud, Institutional responsibilities, International, Journal, News, Peer review, Publication ethics, Research integrity, Research results, Researcher responsibilities
Related Reading
No Related Readings Found!
Related Links
Random selected image from the AHRECS library. These were all purchased from iStockPhoto. These are images we use in our workshops and Dr Allen used in the GUREM.