The Global Landscape of Research Misconduct in Computer Science: Map-ping Research Integrity Challenges Through Network Analysis of Structural Holes and Centrality in Scopus Retracted Articles

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Associate Professor, Department of Information Science & Knowledge Studies, Azarbaijan Shahid Madani University, Tabriz, Iran,

Abstract

Purpose: Retraction refers to the withdrawal of a published article due to either human error or intentional scientific misconduct. Retracted articles reduce the credibility and trust within scientific communities and can have harmful consequences for society. In other words, both intentional and unintentional errors made by individuals in research can damage the scientific reputation of an institution, a country, and even an entire field of study. By analyzing the current state of research misconduct, a systematic review of retracted articles offers an opportunity to improve planning and policymaking aimed at reducing the number of such articles at the individual, organizational, national, and international levels. This scientometric study aims to examine the co-authorship network of countries involved in retracted computer science articles, utilizing network centrality measures and structural hole theory.
Methodology: This applied research employs a scientometric approach. The study's statistical population consists of all 8,489 retracted computer science articles indexed in the Scopus database. VOSviewer software was utilized to construct and analyze the co-authorship network; Pajek was employed to extract aggregate constraint values and to identify structural holes within the co-authorship network of countries. Additionally, SPSS was used for descriptive and inferential statistical analyses, and Excel was used to generate graphs and visualize co-authorship patterns.
Findings: Based on the findings, the first retracted articles in computer science were published in 2003. The peak year for retractions was 2010, accounting for 33.7% of cases. The retracted articles received between zero and 441 citations; of the 8,489 articles examined, 4,262 (50.2%) had not received any citations. Approximately 17.4% of the articles were single-authored, while the majority (82.6%) had multiple authors. The most common authorship patterns were two-author articles (36%) and three-author articles (23%). Additionally, the Collaborative Coefficient (CC) among the authors of the retracted computer science articles was 0.52, indicating a moderate tendency toward co-authorship. The top three countries with the highest number of retracted articles in computer science were China, India, and the United States, respectively. Based on degree and closeness centrality indices, India, China, and the United States ranked highest, respectively. Considering the betweenness centrality index, China, India, and the United States played central roles in the co-authorship network of the studied retracted articles. Regarding aggregate constraint values, China, India, and Malaysia played the largest roles in bridging structural gaps and facilitating country connections. Spearman correlation tests revealed positive and significant relationships among degree and closeness centralities (r = 0.949), degree and betweenness centralities (r = 0.889), and betweenness and closeness centralities (r = 0.889) for 87 countries in the connected network, all significant at the 0.01 level. Conversely, degree centrality and aggregate constraints (r = -0.875), betweenness centrality and aggregate constraints (r = -0.766), and closeness centrality and aggregate constraints (r = -0.782) showed significant inverse relationships at the same significance level.
Conclusion: The prevalence of retracted articles from various countries indicates the challenges related to research ethics in these countries, although different in scale. Network centrality indices and structural hole theory reveal that China and India occupy central and broker roles within the co-authorship network of retracted articles in computer science. While China and India are emerging scientific hubs, the high incidence of retractions in computer science may serve as a warning regarding the quality and ethical standards of research in these countries. Additionally, the increasing number of retractions in the United States, a well-established scientific hub, could have a broader impact on the global credibility of science. The high number of retracted articles in countries with considerable scientific output highlights the need for increased attention to research ethics and scientific standards in these regions. Given their central roles in scientific and co-authorship networks, these countries bear greater responsibility for maintaining research credibility and trust by upholding rigorous scientific standards and promoting ethical research practices. Additionally, European countries should reconsider their research policies due to their intermediary roles in the network of retracted articles. Furthermore, the involvement of a growing number of developing countries—such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and Malaysia—in authorship of retracted articles may stem from weak monitoring systems, insufficient awareness of research ethics standards, and institutional pressure to publish more articles. Considering the harm that fraudulent articles inflict on the body of knowledge, all countries must contribute to maintaining and strengthening scientific standards. They are expected to strengthen monitoring systems, provide training, and raise awareness in the field of research ethics. Enhancing international cooperation to exchange experiences and improve research ethics standards would also be beneficial.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

پوروشسب، س. (1397). آسیب‌شناسی و بررسی مقالات بین‌المللی سلب ‏اعتبارشدۀ ایرانی در پایگاه‌های اطلاعاتی اسکوپوس، گوگل‏ اسکولار و ریسرچ‏‌گیت بین سال‌های 1997 تا 2017. علوم و فنون مدیریت اطلاعات، 4(2)، 137-156. https://doi.org/10.22091/stim.2018.3054.1200
جنوی، ا.، و مرادی، ش. (1397). سرنوشت استنادی مقالات سلب اعتبار شده جهان: مطالعه تطبیقی حوزه‌های علوم انسانی، علوم پزشکی، علوم مهندسی و علوم پایه. مدیریت اطلاعات، 4(1)، 25-40.
    https://www.aimj.ir/article_80757.html
خادمی‌زاده، ش.، و اسماعیلی، س. (1402). ابعاد و الگوهای همکاری آثار سلب اعتبارشدۀ حوزه پزشکی اسکوپوس. مدیریت اطلاعات سلامت، 20(1)، 22-29. https://doi.org/10.48305/him.2023.41208.1060
رجب‌زاده عصارها، ا.، فهیمی‌فر، س.، و نقشینه، ن. (1402). دلایل سلب اعتبار مقالات ایرانی‌ها: مرور نظام‌مند. تحقیقات کتابداری و اطلاع‌رسانی دانشگاهی، 57(3)، 73-94.
    https://doi.org/10.22059/jlib.2024.367495.1714
شهرکی محمدی، آ.، کیخا، ل.، و خانی، ف. (1404). تأثیر علمی و دگرسنجی مطالعات مرور نظام‌مند سلب اعتبار شده دسترسی باز و بسته. پژوهش‌نامه علم‌سنجی، 11(2)، 1-20.
    https://doi.org/10.22070/rsci.2024.19548.1751
شورای عالی انقلاب فرهنگی (1389). سند نقشه جامع علمی کشور. بازیابی در 26 اسفند 1402 از:
    https://qavanin.ir/Law/TreeText/?IDS=17517046340393698074
صراطی شیرازی، م. (1391). اخلاق در پژوهش. تخت جمشید.
    https://www.isc.ac/file/download/gsiBook/647437d76ffe4-1534224416-end.pdf
غراوی، ا. (1398). سخن سردبیر: تفاوت استرداد یا سلب اعتبار (Retraction) و پس گرفتن (Article withdrawal). مجله دانش و تندرستی در علوم پزشکی، 14(4)، 1.
    https://doi.org/10.22100/jkh.v14i4.2356
قربی، ع.، و فهیمی‌فر، س. (1399). ابعاد و الگوهای همکاری آثار سلب‌اعتبار‌شده به‌عنوان مصداق سوء‌رفتار پژوهشی در سطح بین‌المللی و ایران. پژوهش‌نامه علم‌سنجی، 6(1)، 149-172.
    https://doi.org/10.22070/rsci.2019.4392.1287
قربی، ع.، فهیمی‌فر، س.، و نوروزی، ع. (1402). تحلیل استنادی و دلایل سلب‌اعتبار آثار در کشورهای خاورمیانه. پژوهش‌نامه علم‌سنجی، 9(1)، 99-124. https://doi.org/10.22070/rsci.2021.13819.1472
محمدلو، ا.، و بتولی، ز. (1399). مطالعه علم‌سنجی و تحلیل محتوای تولیدات علمی با موضوع «سلب اعتبار مقالات» در پایگاه استنادی اسکوپوس. مجله علوم پزشکی فیض، ۲۴(۴)، ۴۴۶-۴۶۱.
     http://feyz.kaums.ac.ir/article-1-4121-fa.html
مرادی، ش.، و جنوی، الف. (1397). مطالعه علم‌سنجیِ مقاله‌های سلب اعتبارشده ایرانی. پژوهشنامه پردازش و مدیریت اطلاعات، 33 (4)، 1789-1808.  https://jipm.irandoc.ac.ir/article_699497.html
مروتی، م.، و ریاحی‌نیا، ن. (1398). سلب اعتبار مقاله‌های حوزه غدد درون‌ریز و متابولیسم: دلایل و ویژگی‌ها. فصلنامه مدیریت سلامت، ۲۲(۴)،۵۰-۶۱.  http://jha.iums.ac.ir/article-1-3111-fa.html
مروتی، م.، و عرفان‌منش، م. (1399). سلب اعتبار بروندادهای علمی و مصادیق بداخلاقی پژوهشی. فصلنامه اخلاق در علوم و فناوری، 15(4)، 62-69. http://ethicsjournal.ir/article-1-2083-fa.html
مطلبی، د. (1401). آگاهی اعضای هیات علمی با مفاهیم و مصادیق سوء رفتار علمی مورد مطالعه: دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد یادگار امام (ره). تحقیقات کتابداری و اطلاع‌رسانی دانشگاهی، 56(4)، 53-68.
    https://doi.org/10.22059/jlib.2023.353362.1665
نوروزی چاکلی، ع. (1404). سخن سردبیر: تسلط بر مقررات و اسناد بالادستی: کلید موفقیت متخصصان علم‌سنجی در نظام علمی. پژوهش‌نامه علم‌سنجی، 11(1)، 1-2. https://doi.org/10.22070/rsci.2025.4712
Abbasi, A., Altmann, J., & Hossain, L. (2011). Identifying the effects of co-authorship networks on the performance of scholars: A correlation and regression analysis of performance measures and social network analysis measures. Journal of Informetrics, 5(4), 594-607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2011.05.007
Ajiferuke, I., Burell, Q., & Tague, J. (1988). Collaborative coefficient: A single measure of the degree of collaboration in research. Scientometrics, 14(5), 421-433.
      https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017100
Asif Khan, M., Farid, H., & Ali, I. (2024). Bibliometric analysis of dubious research. In O. J. de Oliveira (Ed.), Bibliometrics: An Essential Methodological Tool for Research Projects.  IntechOpen. Retrieved December 27, 2024, form
      https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1005274
Barabasi, A. L., Jeong, H., Neda, Z., Ravasz, E., Schubert, A., & Vicsek, T. (2002). Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications. 311(3-4), 590–614. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4371(02)00736-7
Bernardoni, B. J. (2011). Utilizing Social Network Analysis in Support of Nation Building [Unpublished master’s dissertation]. Air Force Institute of Technology.
      https://scholar.afit.edu/etd/1487
Bolland, M. J., Grey, A., & Avenell, A. (2022). Citation of retracted publications: A challenging problem. Accountability in Research, 29(1), 18-25.
      https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2021.1886933
Borgatti, S. P. (2005). Centrality and network flow. Social Network, 27(1), 55-71.
      https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2004.11.008
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Harvard University Press. Retrieved February 8, 2025, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1kz4h78
Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American journal of sociology, 110(2), 349-399. https://doi.org/10.1086/421787
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(4), 356-360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2018.01.009
Candal-Pedreira, C., Ross, J. S., Ruano-Ravina, A., Egilman, D. S., Fernández, E., & Pérez-Ríos, M. (2022). Retracted papers originating from paper mills: Cross sectional study. BMJ, 379, e071517. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-071517
De Nooy, W., Mrvar, A., & Batagelj, V. (2018). Exploratory Social Network Analysis with Pajek . Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108565691
Di Marco, M. K., Taylor, J. E., & Alin, P. (2010). Emergence and role of cultural boundary spanners in global engineering project networks. Journal of Management in Engineering, 26(3), 123-132. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000019
Fernandes, J. M., & Monteiro, M. P. (2017). Evolution in the number of authors of computer science publications. Scientometrics, 110(2), 529-539.
      https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2214-9
Fleming, L., & Waguespack, D. M. (2007).  Brokerage, boundary spanning, and leadership in open innovation communities. Organization Science, 18(2), 165–180.
      https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1060.0242
Forte, C. E. (2017). Seeking Social Capital and Expertise in a Newly-Formed Research Community: A Co-Author Analysis [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Pepperdine University. Retrieved July 1, 2025, from:
      https://www.proquest.com/openview/71b770102fedc463646e9ad9607685e1/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750
Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks: conceptual clarifications. Social Networks, 1(3), 215-239. Retrieved February 8, 2025, from
      https://www.bebr.ufl.edu/sites/default/files/Centrality%20in%20Social%20Networks.pdf
Gharravi, A. M. (2020). Note from the Editor-in-Chief: the difference between a withdrawn article and a retracted article.  Journal of Knowledge & Health in Basic Medical Sciences, 14(4), 1. https://doi.org/10.22100/jkh.v14i4.2356  [In Persian].
Ghorbi, A., & Fahimifar, S. (2020). Aspects and collaboration patterns of retracted papers as evidence of research misconduct in Iran and foreign countries. Scientometrics Research Journal, 6(1), 149-172. https://doi.org/10.22070/rsci.2019.4392.1287  [In Persian].
Ghorbi, A., Fahimifar, S., & Noruzi, A. (2023). Citation analysis and reasons for retraction in Middle Eastern countries. Scientometrics Research Journal, 9(1), 99-124.
      https://doi.org/10.22070/rsci.2021.13819.1472  [In Persian].
Hasni, R., Yusoff, N. I., Movahedi, F., Rudrusamy, G., & Bakar, S. A. (2023). The co-authorship network analysis of research papers in Malaysian Journal of Mathematical Sciences in 2019: Co-authorship network analysis in Malaysian Journal of Mathematical Sciences. Journal of Mathematical Sciences and Informatics, 3(1). 25-41.
      https://journal.umt.edu.my/index.php/jmsi/article/view/371
Hsiao, T. K., & Schneider, J. (2021). Continued use of retracted papers: Temporal trends in citations and (lack of) awareness of retractions shown in citation contexts in biomedicine. Quantitative Science Studies, 2(4), 1144-1169. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00155
Ioannidis, J. P., Pezzullo, A. M., Cristiano, A., Boccia, S., & Baas, J. (2025). Linking citation and retraction data reveals the demographics of scientific retractions among highly cited authors. PLOS Biology, 23(1), e3002999. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002999
Islam, M. (2023). The importance of research in the advancement of knowledge and society. International Research Journal of Basic and Clinical Studies, 8(4), 1-3.
      https://www.interesjournals.org/articles/the-importance-of-research-in-the-advancement-of-knowledge-and-society.pdf
Janavi, E., & Moradi, S. (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. https://www.aimj.ir/article_80757.html [In Persian].
khademizadeh, S., & esmaeili, S. (2023). Facets and collaboration patterns of retracted medical work in the Scopus. Health Information Management, 20(1), 22-29.
      https://doi.org/10.48305/him.2023.41208.1060 [In Persian].
Li, E. Y., Liao, C. H., & Yen, H. R. (2013). Co-authorship networks and research impact: A social capital perspective. Research Policy, 42(9), 1515-1530.
      https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.06.012
Lu, H., & Feng, Y. (2009). A measure of authors’ centrality in co-authorship networks based on distribution of collaborative relationships. Scientometrics, 81(2), 499-511.
      https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-2173-x
Matlabi, D. (2022). Awareness of faculty members with the concepts and examples of academic misconduct; study case: Islamic Azad University, Yadgar Imam Khomeini Branch. Academic Librarianship and Information Research, 56(4), 53-68.
      https://doi.org/10.22059/jlib.2023.353362.1665 [In Persian].
Minetto, S., Pisaturo, D., Cermisoni, G. C., Vanni, V. S., Pagliardini, L., Papaleo, E., Berghella, V., Mol, B. W., & Alteri, A. (2024). Are you aware of your citations? A cross-sectional survey on improper citations of retracted articles in assisted reproduction. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 49(5), 104366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2024.104366
Mohamadloo, A., & Batooli, Z. (2020). A scientometric and content analysis of research output on retracted papers indexed in Scopus. Feyz Medical Sciences Journal, 24(4), 446-461.
      http://feyz.kaums.ac.ir/article-1-4121-fa.html  [In Persian].
Moradi, S., & Janavi, E. (2018). A scientometrics study of Iranian retracted papers. Iranian Journal of Information Processing and Management, 33(4), 1789-1808.
      https://jipm.irandoc.ac.ir/article_699497.html  [In Persian].
Morovati, M., & Riahinia, N. (2019). Retractions in endocrinology and metabolism journals: Causes and characteristics. Journal of Health Administration, 22 (4), 50-61. 
      http://jha.iums.ac.ir/article-1-3111-en.html [In Persian].
Morovatti, M., & Erfanmanesh, M. A. (2020). Retraction of scholarly outputs and instances of research misbehavior. Ethics in Science and Technology. 15(4), 62-69.
      http://ethicsjournal.ir/article-1-2083-en.html [In Persian].
Namanji, S., & Ssekyewa, C. (2012). Role and nature of research in development. Makerere Journal of Higher Education, 4(1), 83-92. https://doi.org/10.4314/majohe.v4i1.4
Newman, M. E. (2001). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(2), 404-409. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.98.2.404
Noroozi Chakoli, A. (2025). Note from the Editor-in-Chief: Mastery of regulations and upstream documents: The key to the success of scientometrics specialists in the scientific system. Scientometrics Research Journal, 11(1), 1-2. https://doi.org/10.22070/rsci.2025.4712  [In Persian].
Obstfeld, D. (2005).  Social networks, the tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1), 100–130.
      https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.1.100
Otte, E., & Rousseau, R. (2002). Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. Journal of Information Science, 28(6), 441-453.
      https://doi.org/10.1177/016555150202800601
Patel, V. M., Panzarasa, P., Ashrafian, H., Evans, T. S., Kirresh, A., Sevdalis, N., Darzi, A., & Athanasiou, T. (2019). Collaborative patterns, authorship practices, and scientific success in biomedical research: a network analysis. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 112(6), 245-257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0141076819851666
Pattnaik, D., Ray, S., & Raman, R. (2024). Applications of artificial intelligence and machine learning in the financial services industry: A bibliometric review. Heliyon, 10(1), e23492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e23492
Poroushasb, S. (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. https://doi.org/10.22091/stim.2018.3054.1200
      [In Persian].
Rafols, I., & Meyer, M. (2010).  Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: case studies in bionanoscience. Scientometrics, 82(2), 263–287.
      https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0041-y
Rajabzadeh Assarha, A., Fahimifar, S., & Naghshineh, N. (2023). Reasons for retraction of Iranian articles: A systematic review. Academic Librarianship and Information Research, 57(3), 73-94. https://doi.org/10.22059/jlib.2024.367495.1714  [In Persian].
Raman, R., Pattnaik, D., Hughes, L., & Nedungadi, P. (2024). Unveiling the dynamics of AI applications: A review of reviews using scientometrics and BERTopic modeling. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 9(3), 100517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2024.100517
Sargunapathi, R., & Jeyshankar, R. (2025). Authorship and collaborative pattern in the field of artificial intelligence in academic libraries: A scientometric study. In S. Thanuskodi (Ed.), Exploring Digital Metrics in Academic Libraries (pp. 269-290). IGI Global Scientific Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-5807-8.ch012
Serati Shirazi, M. (2012). Ethics in Research. Takht-e Jamshid.
      https://www.isc.ac/file/download/gsiBook/647437d76ffe4-1534224416-end.pdf  [In Persian].
Shahraki Mohammadi, A., Keikha, L., & Khani, F. (2025). The scientific and altmetric impact of closed and open access retracted systematic review studies. Scientometrics Research Journal, 11(2), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.22070/rsci.2024.19548.1751[In Persian].
Sharma, K. (2021). Team size and retracted citations reveal the patterns of retractions from 1981 to 2020. Scientometrics, 126(10), 8363-8374.
      https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04125-4
Sharma, P., Sharma, B., Reza, A., Inampudi, K. K., & Dhamija, R. K. (2023). A systematic review of retractions in biomedical research publications: Rreasons for retractions and their citations in Indian affiliations. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02095-x
Shepperd, M., & Yousefi, L. (2023). An analysis of retracted papers in computer science. PLOS One, 18(5), e0285383. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285383
Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution (2010). Comprehensive Scientific Map of Iran. Retrieved March 16, 2024, from
      https://qavanin.ir/Law/TreeText/?IDS=17517046340393698074 [In Persian].
Wang, Y., Li, N., Zhang, B., Huang, Q., Wu, J., & Wang, Y. (2023). The effect of structural holes on producing novel and disruptive research in physics. Scientometrics, 128(3), 1801-1823. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04635-3
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved February 8, 2025, from
      https://toc.library.ethz.ch/objects/pdf_ead50/3/E28_1502716_TB-I_002336476.pdf
Watts D.J. (1999). Networks, dynamics, and the small-world phenomenon. American Journal of Sociology, 105(2), 493–527. https://doi.org/10.1086/210318
Zhang, Q., Abraham, J., & Fu, H. Z. (2020). Collaboration and its influence on retraction based on retracted publications during 1978–2017. Scientometrics, 125(1), 213-232.
      https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03636-w

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics