تحلیل استنادی و دلایل سلب‌اعتبار آثار در کشورهای خاورمیانه

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 کارشناس ارشد علم‌سنجی، گروه علم اطلاعات و دانش‌شناسی، دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه تهران.

2 دانشیار گروه علم اطلاعات و دانش‌شناسی، دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه تهران .

3 دانشیار گروه علم اطلاعات و دانش‌شناسی، دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه تهران.

چکیده

هدف: پژوهش حاضر با هدف تحلیل جامع آثار سلب‌اعتبارشدۀ کشورهای خاورمیانه از طریق تحلیل استنادی و دلایل سلب اعتبار این کشورها انجام شده است.
روش‌شناسی: پژوهش حاضر به‌منظور جمع‌آوری داده‌ها از روش اسنادی و به‌‌منظور تحلیل داده‌ها از روش تحلیل کتاب‌سنجی استفاده کرده است. داده‌ها از مجموعه هستۀ پایگاه اطلاعاتی وب‌آوساینس گردآوری شد.
یافته‌ها: یافته‌های پژوهش حاکی از روند افزایشی تعداد آثار سلب‌اعتبارشده در خاورمیانه است. آثار سلب‌اعتبارشده در مجلاتی با چارک اول و دوم بیشترین میزان استنادها را نسبت به سایر آثار کسب کرده‌اند. علاوه‌براین، بیشترین فراوانی آثار سلب‌اعتبارشده و سوءرفتارهای پژوهشی مربوط به حوزۀ علوم زیستی و زیست‌پزشکی بود. کشورهای قبرس، کویت، رژیم اشغالگر قدس دارای بیشترین فاصلۀ زمانی بین انتشار تا سلب‌اعتبار آثار بودند. در کل کشورهای خاورمیانه، آثار، بیشتر به دلایل سوءرفتارهای پژوهشی مانند سرقت علمی و نشر تکراری سلب‌اعتبارشده بودند.
نتیجه‌گیری: نتایج نشان داد که در عصر حاضر در زمان استفاده از پژوهش‌های پیشین صرفاً داشتن استناد دلیل کافی برای کیفیت اثر نیست، چراکه بسیاری از استنادهای دریافتی آثار از اعتبار کافی برخودار نیستند. سردبیران مجلات و مسئولان پایگاه‌های اطلاعاتی باید تمهیداتی برای جلوگیری از استناد تأییدکننده به این آثار درنظربگیرند. 

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Citation Analysis and Reasons for Retraction in Middle Eastern Countries

نویسندگان [English]

  • Ali Ghorbi 1
  • Sepideh Fahimifar 2
  • Alireza Noruzi 3
1 MA. of Scientometrics, Department of Knowledge and Information Science, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
2 Associate Professor, Department of Knowledge and Information Science, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
3 Associate Professor, Department of Knowledge and Information Science, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Purpose: This study aims to analyze the retracted publications of Middle Eastern countries through citation analysis, lag-time between publication and retraction, and exploring the reasons for retraction.
Methodology: Data was gathered by the document method and analyzing data was done by bibliometric analysis. Data were collected from the core collection of the Web of Science.
Findings: The research findings suggest an increasing trend in the number of retracted papers from Middle Eastern countries. Also, the results of Kendall's τ coefficient showed that the total number of publications is significantly related to the number of retracted papers. The results of the Kruskal-Wallis test showed a significant difference between the total number of citations and the four quartiles (i.e. Q1-Q4), and according to the average ranks, the journals of the first (Q1) and second (Q2) quartiles had received the highest number of total citations. Furthermore, the results of this test between quartiles and citations before and after retraction showed that there was a significant difference between different quartiles in citations after retraction, and the journals of the first (Q1) and second (Q2) quartiles received the most citations. In addition, there was a significant difference in the number of citations before retraction between different quartiles, and the highest average rank was related to the journals of the second quartile (Q2) and the first quartile (Q1), respectively. The highest number of retracted papers has been published in Bahrain. Based on the proportion of citations to each document, the highest proportion belonged to Israel. Also, the countries of Cyprus, Kuwait, Israel, and Iraq have the highest average time between publication and retraction, and Iran ranks ninth. In addition, it should be noted that the two countries of Oman and Jordan, which are ranked 14th and 15th respectively, each had only one retracted paper. In addition, the highest number of retracted papers and research misconduct was related to the field of biological sciences and biomedicine. The countries of Cyprus, Kuwait, and Israel had the longest time interval between publication and retraction. In all Middle Eastern countries, most papers were retracted due to research misconduct such as plagiarism and Redundant publication.
Conclusion: The results show that in the present era, it should be noted that citation is not a sufficient reason for the quality of the work while using previous studies, because many citations received by the works are not valid enough. Journal editors and database administrators should take measures to prevent authoritative citations to these works. Also, examining the status of retracted papers based on citations, the time interval between publication and retraction in different subject areas showed that the highest numbers of retracted papers were related to the field of biological sciences and biomedicine. Furthermore, the longest distance between publication and retraction, the largest number of citations, and the most citations received after retraction belonged to this field. It can be seen that there are three very effective factors in spreading the negative impact of retraction papers in the field of biological sciences and biomedicine. This result means that the required time for retraction in this area is longer than in other areas, and this can have damaging consequences. The longer the lifespan of flawed research, the higher the price the scientific community must pay. It is very important to carry out detailed judgments and demand raw data and files related to data analysis in a mandatory manner, especially on issues related to public health. Using retracted papers and citing them has many adverse effects. These effects are doubled when the citations are made after retraction and the citation is made in one of the medical fields. In this regard, arrangements should be made to properly inform others about the retraction status of paper in sensitive scientific fields such as the medical field. Correspondingly, all original versions of the paper that may have been published on the journal's website, the author's resume, or social networks will be completely removed.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • retracted works
  • research misconduct
  • scientific error
  • plagiarism

مراجع

پورشسب، ساناز. (۱۳۹۷). آسیب‌شناسی و بررسی مقالات بین‌المللی سلب‌‌اعتبار‌شدۀ ایرانی در پایگاه اطلاعاتی اسکوپوس، گوگل اسکولار و ریسرچ گیت بین سال‌های 1997 تا 2017. علوم و فنون مدیریت اطلاعات، 4 (2)، 137-156. DOI: 10.22091/stim.2018.3054.1200
جنوی، المیرا و مرادی، شیما. (۱۳۹۷). سرنوشت استنادی مقالات سلب‌‌اعتبار‌شده جهان: مطالعه تطبیقی حوزه‌های علوم انسانی، علوم پزشکی، علوم مهندسی و علوم پایه. نشریه علمی مدیریت اطلاعات، 4 (1)، 25-40.
‏‫جنوی، المیرا و مرادی، شیما. (۱۳۹8). سرنوشت مقالات سلب اعتبارشده کشورهای خاورمیانه در حوزه سلامت. فصلنامه رهیافت، 29 (74)، 53-64 DOI: 10.22034/rahyaft.2019.13766.
‏‫قربی، علی و فهیمی‌فر، سپیده. (1399). ابعاد و الگوهای همکاری آثار سلب‌اعتبار‌شده به‌عنوان مصداق سوء‌رفتار پژوهشی در سطح بین‌المللی و ایران. پژوهشنامه علم‌سنجی. 4 (11)، 149-172. DOI: 10.22070/rsci.2019.4392.1287
مرادی، شیما، جنوی، المیرا و کاظمی، حمید. (1396). مطالعه تطبیقی سوء‌رفتار علمی در جهان. مطالعات کتابداری و سازمان‌دهی اطلاعات، 28 (4)، 75-94.
‏‫مرادی، شیما و جنوی، المیرا. (۱۳۹۷). مطالعه علم‌سنجیِ مقاله‌های سلب‌‌اعتبارشده ایرانی. پژوهشنامه پردازش و مدیریت اطلاعات، 33 (4)، 1789-1808. DOI: 10.35050/JIPM010.2018.034
Aspura, M. Y. I., Noorhidawati, A., & Abrizah, A. (2018). An analysis of Malaysian retracted papers: Misconduct or mistakes? Scientometrics, 115(3), 1315-1328.
Balhara, Y. P. S., & Mishra, A. (2014). Compliance of retraction notices for retracted articles on mental disorders with COPE guidelines on retraction. Current Science, 107(5), 757-760.
Bar-Ilan, J., & Halevi, G. (2017). Post retraction citations in context: a case study. Scientometrics, 113(1), 547-565.
Bornemann-Cimenti, H., Szilagyi, I. S., & Sandner-Kiesling, A. (2016). Perpetuation of Retracted Publications Using the Example of the Scott S. Reuben Case: Incidences, Reasons and Possible Improvements. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(4), 1063-1072.
Campos-Varela, I., & Ruano-Raviña, A. (2019). Misconduct as the main cause for retraction. A descriptive study of retracted publications and their authors. Gaceta sanitaria, 33, 356-360.
Cassão, B. D. A., Herbella, F. A., Schlottmann, F., & Patti, M. G. (2018). Retracted articles in surgery journals. What are surgeons doing wrong? Surgery, 163(6), 1201-1206.
Dal-Ré, R., & Ayuso, C. (2019). Reasons for and time to retraction of genetics articles published between 1970 and 2018. Journal of medical genetics(56), 734-740.
Da Silva, J. A. T., & Dobranszki, J. (2017). Highly cited retracted papers. Scientometrics, 110(3), 1653-1661.
Furman, J. L., Jensen, K., & Murray, F. (2012). Governing knowledge in the scientific community: Exploring the role of retractions in biomedicine. Research Policy, 41(2), 276-290.
Ghorbi, Ali; Fahimifar, Sepideh. (2020). Aspects and Collaboration Patterns of Retracted Papers as Evidence of Research Misconduct in Iran and Foreign countries. Scientometrics Research Journal, 6(11), 149-172. DOI: 10.22070/rsci.2019.4392.1287. [In Persian]
Grieneisen, M. L., & Zhang, M. (2012). A Comprehensive Survey of Retracted Articles from the Scholarly Literature. PLoS ONE, 7(10), e44118.
Hamilton, D. G. (2019). Continued Citation of Retracted Radiation Oncology Literature—Do We Have a Problem? International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics, 103(5), 1036-1042.
Hwang, W. S., Roh, S. I., Lee, B. C., Kang, S. K., Kwon, D. K., Kim, S., . . . Schatten, G. (2005). Developmental Biology: Patient-specific embryonic stem cells derived from human SCNT blastocysts. Science, 308(5729), 1777-1783.
Janavi, Elmira; Moradi, Shima. (2018). Citation Fate of World Retracted Articles: The Comparative Study of Humanities, Medical Science, Engineering Science and Pure Science. Iranian Journal of Information Management, 4(1), 25-40. [In Persian]
Janavi, Elmira; Moradi, Shima. (2019). The Fate of Middle Eastern Countries' Retracted Articles on Health. Rahyaft, 29(74), 53-64. DOI: 10.22034/rahyaft.2019.13766. [In Persian]
Jorgensen, P. M. (2010). Authors are not criminals and editors should not be policemen. Epidemiologia E Psichiatria Sociale-an International Journal for Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 19(3), 193-195.
King, E. G., Oransky, I., Sachs, T. E., Farber, A., Flynn, D. B., Abritis, A., . . . Siracuse, J. J. J. (2018). Analysis of retracted articles in the surgical literature. The American Journal of Surgery, 216(5), 851-855.
Kleinert, S. (2009). COPE's retraction guidelines. Lancet, 374(9705), 1876-1877.
LaCour, M. J., & Green, D. P. (2014). When contact changes minds: An experiment on transmission of support for gay equality. Science, 346(6215), 1366-1369.
Lei, L., & Zhang, Y. (2018). Lack of Improvement in Scientific Integrity: An Analysis of WoS Retractions by Chinese Researchers (1997–2016). Journal of Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(5), 1409-1420.
Lu, S. F., Jin, G. Z., Uzzi, B., & Jones, B. (2013). The Retraction Penalty: Evidence from the Web of Science. Scientific Reports, 3(1), 3146.
Mansourzadeh, M.J., Ghazimirsaeid,J.,Motamedi,N.,Najafi,A., Abubakar,A.A., & Dehdarirad,H.(2021). A Survey of Iranian Retracted Publications Indexed in PubMed. Iranian Journal of Public Health, 50(1), 188-194.
Madlock-Brown, C. R., & Eichmann, D. (2015). The (lack of) Impact of Retraction on Citation Networks. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(1), 127-137.
Misra, D. P., Ravindran, V., & Agarwal, V. J. J. o. K. m. s. (2018). Integrity of authorship and peer review practices: challenges and opportunities for improvement. 33(46), e: 287.
Moed, Henk F., Wolfgang Glänzel, and Ulrich Schmoch (2004). "Handbook of quantitative science and technology research." The Use of Publication and Patent Statistics in Studies of S&T Systems. Springer 
Moradi, Shima; Janavi, Elmira. (2018). A Scientometrics Study of Iranian Retracted Papers. IranDoc, 33(4), 1789-1808. DOI: 10.35050/JIPM010.2018.034. [In Persian]
Moradi, Shima; Janavi, Elmira. Kazemi, H. (2018). A Comparative Study of Scientific Misconduct through the World. Librarianship and Information Organization Studies, 28(4), 149-172. [In Persian]
Moradi, Shima; Janavi, Elmira; Kazemi, Hamid. (2018). A Comparative Study of Scientific Misconduct through the World. Librarianship and Information Organization Studies, 28(4), 149-172. [In Persian]
Nogueira, T. E., Gonçalves, A. S., Leles, C. R., Batista, A. C., & Costa, L. R. (2017). A survey of retracted articles in dentistry. BMC Research Notes, 10(1), 253-253.
Poroushasb, Sanaz. (2018). Pathology and study of the Iranian retracted papers in Scopus, Google Scholar, and Research gate Databases Between 1997-2017. Sciences and Techniques of Information Management, 4(2), 137-156. DOI: 10.22091/stim.2018.3054.1200. [In Persian]
Qi, X., Deng, H., & Guo, X. (2017). Characteristics of retractions related to faked peer reviews: An overview. Postgraduate Medical Journal, 93(1102), 499-503.
Ribeiro, M. D., & Vasconcelos, S. M. R. (2018). Retractions covered by Retraction Watch in the 2013–2015 period: prevalence for the most productive countries. Scientometrics, 29(8), 719-734.
Rubbo, P., Pilatti, L. A., & Picinin, C. T. (2019). Citation of Retracted Articles in Engineering: A Study of the Web of Science Database. Ethics and Behavior, 29(8), 661-679.
Shuai, X., Rollins, J., Moulinier, I., Custis, T., Edmunds, M., & Schilder, F. (2017). A Multidimensional Investigation of the Effects of Publication Retraction on Scholarly Impact. JASIST, 68(9), 2225-2236.
Sox, H. C., & Rennie, D. (2006). Research misconduct, retraction, and cleansing the medical literature: Lessons from the Poehlman case. Annals of Internal Medicine, 144(8), 609-613.
Steen, R. G. (2012). Retractions in the medical literature: how can patients be protected from risk? Journal of Medical Ethics, 38(4), 228-232.
Steen, R. G., Casadevall, A., & Fang, F. C. (2013). Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? PLoS ONE, 8, e68397.
Thelwall, M., & Wilson, P. (2014). Regression for citation data: An evaluation of different methods. Journal of Informetrics, 8(4), 963-971. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2014.09.011
Thielen, J. (2018). When scholarly publishing goes awry: Educating ourselves and our patrons about retracted articles. Portal, 18(1), 183-198.
Trikalinos, N. A., Evangelou, E., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2008). Falsified papers in high-impact journals were slow to retract and indistinguishable from nonfraudulent papers. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61(5), 464-470.
Van Noorden, R. (2011). Science publishing: The trouble with retractions. Nature, 478(7367), 26-28.
Wager, E., Barbour, V., Yentis, S., & Kleinert, S., (2009). Retractions: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Croatian Medical Journal, 50(6), 532–535.
Wager, E., & Williams, P. (2011). Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988-2008. Journal of Medical Ethics, 37(9), 567-570.
Wakefield, A. J., Murch, S. H., Anthony, A., Linnell, J., Casson, D. M., Malik, M., . . . Walker-Smith, J. A. (1998). Retracted: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet, 351(9103), 637-641.

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار