This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Bar-Ilan, J., & Halevi, G. (2018). Temporal characteristics of retracted articles. Scientometrics, 116(3), 1771-1783.Bar-IlanJ. & HaleviG.(2018).Temporal characteristics of retracted articles.,116(3),1771-1783.Search in Google Scholar
Björk, B. C., & Solomon, D. (2015). Article processing charges in OA journals: relationship between price and quality. Scientometrics, 103(2), 373-385.BjörkB. C. & SolomonD.(2015).Article processing charges in OA journals: relationship between price and quality.,103(2),373-385.Search in Google Scholar
Bohannon, J. (2013). Who’s Afraid of Peer Review? Science, 342(6154), 60-65.BohannonJ.(2013).Who’s Afraid of Peer Review?,342(6154),60-65.Search in Google Scholar
Brainard, J., & You, J. (2018). What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about science publishing’s ‘death penalty’. Science, 25(1), 1–5.BrainardJ. & YouJ.(2018).What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about science publishing’s ‘death penalty’.,25(1),1–5.Search in Google Scholar
Butler, D. (2013). Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing. Nature News, 495(7442), 433.ButlerD.(2013).Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing.,495(7442),433.Search in Google Scholar
Chambers, L. M., Michener, C. M., & Falcone, T. (2019). Plagiarism and data falsification are the most common reasons for retraction publications in obstetrics and gynaecology. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 126 (9), 1134-1140.ChambersL. M.MichenerC. M. & FalconeT.(2019).Plagiarism and data falsification are the most common reasons for retraction publications in obstetrics and gynaecology.,126(9),1134-1140.Search in Google Scholar
Chan, L., Cuplinskas, D., Eisen, M., et al. (2002). Budapest open access initiative. ARL Bimonthly, 48.ChanL.CuplinskasD.EisenM.. (2002).Budapest open access initiative.,48.Search in Google Scholar
Chen, W., Xing, Q. R., Wang, H., & Wang, T. (2018). Retracted publications in the biomedical literature with authors from mainland China. Scientometrics, 114(1), 217-227.ChenW.XingQ. R.WangH. & WangT.(2018).Retracted publications in the biomedical literature with authors from mainland China.,114(1),217-227.Search in Google Scholar
Craig, I. D., Plume, A. M., McVeigh, M. E., Pringle, J., & Amin, M. (2007). Do open access articles have greater citation impact?: a critical review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 1(3), 239-248.CraigI. D.PlumeA. M.McVeighM. E.PringleJ. & AminM.(2007).Do open access articles have greater citation impact?: a critical review of the literature.,1(3),239-248.Search in Google Scholar
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(11), 734-740.Dal-RéR. & AyusoC.(2019).Reasons for and time to retraction of genetics articles published between 1970 and 2018.,56(11),734-740.Search in Google Scholar
European Commission. (2020). Responsible Open Science: an ethics and integrity perspective. Retrieved June 1, 2021 from: https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/topic-details/swafs-30-2020.European Commission. (2020)..Retrieved June 1, 2021from: https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/topic-details/swafs-30-2020.Search in Google Scholar
European Commission. (2021). Open Innovation, Open Science, Open to the World. Retrieved June 1, 2021 from: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/speech_15_5243.European Commission. (2021)..Retrieved June 1, 2021from: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/speech_15_5243.Search in Google Scholar
Elango, B. (2021). Retracted articles in the biomedical literature from Indian authors. Scientometrics, 126(5), 3965-3981.ElangoB.(2021).Retracted articles in the biomedical literature from Indian authors.,126(5),3965-3981.Search in Google Scholar
Elia, N., Wager, E., & Tramèr, M. R. (2014). Fate of articles that warranted retraction due to ethical concerns: a descriptive cross-sectional study. PLoS One, 9(1), e85846.EliaN.WagerE. & TramèrM. R.(2014).Fate of articles that warranted retraction due to ethical concerns: a descriptive cross-sectional study.,9(1), e85846.Search in Google Scholar
Erfanmanesh, M., & Teixeira Da Silva, J. A. (2019). Is the soundness-only quality control policy of open access mega journals linked to a higher rate of published errors? Scientometrics, 120(2), 917-923.ErfanmaneshM. & Teixeira Da SilvaJ. A.(2019).Is the soundness-only quality control policy of open access mega journals linked to a higher rate of published errors?,120(2),917-923.Search in Google Scholar
Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(42), 17028-17033.FangF. C.SteenR. G. & CasadevallA.(2012).Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications.,109(42),17028-17033.Search in Google Scholar
Foo, J. Y. A. (2011). A retrospective analysis of the trend of retracted publications in the field of biomedical and life sciences. Science and engineering ethics, 17(3), 459-468.FooJ. Y. A.(2011).A retrospective analysis of the trend of retracted publications in the field of biomedical and life sciences.,17(3),459-468.Search in Google Scholar
Fox, M., & Beall, J. (2014). Advice for plagiarism whistleblowers. Ethical & Behavior, 24(5), 341-349.FoxM. & BeallJ.(2014).Advice for plagiarism whistleblowers.,24(5),341-349.Search in Google Scholar
Freedman, L. P., & Inglese, J. (2014). The increasing urgency for standards in basic biologic research. Cancer research, 74(15), 4024-4029.FreedmanL. P. & IngleseJ.(2014).The increasing urgency for standards in basic biologic research.,74(15),4024-4029.Search in Google Scholar
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.FurmanJ. L.JensenK. & MurrayF.(2012).Governing knowledge in the scientific community: Exploring the role of retractions in biomedicine.,41(2),276-290.Search in Google Scholar
Gerber, P. (2006). What can we learn from the Hwang and Sudbø affairs? Medical Journal of Australia, 184(12), 632-635.GerberP.(2006).What can we learn from the Hwang and Sudbø affairs?,184(12),632-635.Search in Google Scholar
Ghorbi, A., Fazeli-Varzaneh, M., Ghaderi-Azad, E., Ausloos, M., & Kozak, M. (2021). Retracted papers by Iranian authors: causes, journals, time lags, affiliations, collaborations. Scientometrics, 126(9), 7351-7371.GhorbiA.Fazeli-VarzanehM.Ghaderi-AzadE.AusloosM. & KozakM.(2021).Retracted papers by Iranian authors: causes, journals, time lags, affiliations, collaborations.,126(9),7351-7371.Search in Google Scholar
Haunschild, R., Bornmann, L. (2021). Can tweets be used to detect problems early with scientific papers? A case study of three retracted COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 papers. Scientometrics, 126(6), 5181–5199.HaunschildR.BornmannL.(2021).Can tweets be used to detect problems early with scientific papers? A case study of three retracted COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 papers.,126(6),5181–5199.Search in Google Scholar
He, T. (2013). Retraction of global scientific publications from 2001 to 2010. Scientometrics, 96(2), 555-561.HeT.(2013).Retraction of global scientific publications from 2001 to 2010.,96(2),555-561.Search in Google Scholar
Liu, W., & Lei, L. (2021). Retractions in the Middle East from 1999 to 2018: a bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 126(6), 4687-4700.LiuW. & LeiL.(2021).Retractions in the Middle East from 1999 to 2018: a bibliometric analysis.,126(6),4687-4700.Search in Google Scholar
Nosek, B. A., Ebersole, C. R., DeHaven, A. C., & Mellor, D. T. (2018). The preregistration revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11), 2600-2606.NosekB. A.EbersoleC. R.DeHavenA. C. & MellorD. T.(2018).The preregistration revolution.,115(11),2600-2606.Search in Google Scholar
Olson, S., & Griffiths, P. A. (1995). On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research. Retrieved June 1, 2021 from: http://www.sunstar-solutions.com/AOP/SOW/being_scientist.htm.OlsonS. & GriffithsP. A.(1995)..Retrieved June 1, 2021from: http://www.sunstar-solutions.com/AOP/SOW/being_scientist.htm.Search in Google Scholar
Oransky, I. (2018). We’re officially launching our database today. Here’s what you need to know. Retrieved June 1, 2021 from: https://retractionwatch.com/2018/10/25/were-officially-launching-our-database-today-heres-what-you-need-to-know/.OranskyI.(2018).We’re officially launching our database today..Retrieved June 1, 2021from: https://retractionwatch.com/2018/10/25/were-officially-launching-our-database-today-heres-what-you-need-to-know/.Search in Google Scholar
Peterson, G. M. (2013). Characteristics of retracted open access biomedical literature: A bibliographic analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(12), 2428-2436.PetersonG. M.(2013).Characteristics of retracted open access biomedical literature: A bibliographic analysis.,64(12),2428-2436.Search in Google Scholar
Rai, R., & Sabharwal, S. (2017). Retracted publications in orthopaedics: prevalence, characteristics, and trends. The Journal of Bone and Joint surgery, 99(9), e44.RaiR. & SabharwalS.(2017).Retracted publications in orthopaedics: prevalence, characteristics, and trends.,99(9), e44.Search in Google Scholar
Retraction Watch. (2018). Retraction Watch database user guide. Retrieved June 1, 2021 from: https://retractionwatch.com/retraction-watch-database-user-guide/.Retraction Watch. (2018)..Retrieved June 1, 2021from: https://retractionwatch.com/retraction-watch-database-user-guide/.Search in Google Scholar
Richard, V. N. (2011). Science publishing: The trouble with retractions. Nature, 478(7367), 26-28.RichardV. N.(2011).Science publishing: The trouble with retractions.,478(7367),26-28.Search in Google Scholar
Shah, T. A., Gul, S., Bashir, S., Ahmad, S., Huertas, A., Oliveira, A., … & Chakraborty, K. (2021). Influence of accessibility (open and toll-based) of scholarly publications on retractions. Scientometrics, 126(6), 4589-4606.ShahT. A.GulS.BashirS.AhmadS.HuertasA.OliveiraA. & ChakrabortyK.(2021).Influence of accessibility (open and toll-based) of scholarly publications on retractions.,126(6),4589-4606.Search in Google Scholar
Sharma, K. (2021). Team size and retracted citations reveal the patterns of retractions from 1981 to 2020. Scientometrics, 126(10), 8363-8374.SharmaK.(2021).Team size and retracted citations reveal the patterns of retractions from 1981 to 2020.,126(10),8363-8374.Search in Google Scholar
Shen, C., & Björk, B. C. (2015). ‘Predatory’open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC medicine, 13(1), 1-15.ShenC. & BjörkB. C.(2015).‘Predatory’open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics.,13(1),1-15.Search in Google Scholar
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. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(9), 2225-2236.ShuaiX.RollinsJ.MoulinierI.CustisT.EdmundsM. & SchilderF.(2017).A multidimensional investigation of the effects of publication retraction on scholarly impact.,68(9),2225-2236.Search in Google Scholar
Steen, R. G., Casadevall, A., & Fang, F. C. (2013). Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?. PLoS ONE, 8(7), e68397-e68397.SteenR. G.CasadevallA. & FangF. C.(2013).Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?.,8(7), e68397-e68397.Search in Google Scholar
Stojanovski, J. (2015). Do Croatian open access journals support ethical research? Content analysis of instructions to authors. Biochemia medica, 25(1), 12-21.StojanovskiJ.(2015).Do Croatian open access journals support ethical research? Content analysis of instructions to authors.,25(1),12-21.Search in Google Scholar
Tijdink, J. K., Horbach, S. P., Nuijten, M. B., & O’Neill, G. (2021). Towards a research agenda for promoting responsible research practices. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 16(4), 450-460.TijdinkJ. K.HorbachS. P.NuijtenM. B. & O’NeillG.(2021).Towards a research agenda for promoting responsible research practices.,16(4),450-460.Search in Google Scholar
Trikalinos, N. A., Evangelou, E., & Ioannidis, J. P. (2008). Falsified papers in high-impact journals were slow to retract and indistinguishable from nonfraudulent articles. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 61(5), 464-470.TrikalinosN. A.EvangelouE. & IoannidisJ. P.(2008).Falsified papers in high-impact journals were slow to retract and indistinguishable from nonfraudulent articles.,61(5),464-470.Search in Google Scholar
Vadhera, A. S., Lee, J. S., Veloso, I. L., Khan, Z. A., Trasolini, N. A., Gursoy, S., … & Verma, N. N. (2022). Open access articles garner increased social media attention and citation rates compared with subscription access research articles: an altmetrics-based analysis. The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 50(13), 3690-3697.VadheraA. S.LeeJ. S.VelosoI. L.KhanZ. A.TrasoliniN. A.GursoyS. & VermaN. N.(2022).Open access articles garner increased social media attention and citation rates compared with subscription access research articles: an altmetrics-based analysis.,50(13),3690-3697.Search in Google Scholar
Vuong, Q. H., La, V. P., Hồ, M. T., Vuong, T. T., & Ho, M. T. (2020). Characteristics of retracted articles based on retraction data from online sources through February 2019. Science Editing, 7(1), 34-44.VuongQ. H.LaV. P.HồM. T.VuongT. T. & HoM. T.(2020).Characteristics of retracted articles based on retraction data from online sources through February 2019.,7(1),34-44.Search in Google Scholar
Wang, T., Xing, Q. R., Wang, H., & Chen, W. (2019). Retracted publications in the biomedical literature from open access journals. Science and engineering ethics, 25, 855-868.WangT.XingQ. R.WangH. & ChenW.(2019).Retracted publications in the biomedical literature from open access journals.,25,855-868.Search in Google Scholar
Wang, X., Liu, C., Mao, W., & Fang, Z. (2015). The open access advantage considering citation, article usage and social media attention. Scientometrics, 103(2), 555-564.WangX.LiuC.MaoW. & FangZ.(2015).The open access advantage considering citation, article usage and social media attention.,103(2),555-564.Search in Google Scholar
Web of Science. (2021). Web of Science Core Collection Help. Retrieved June 1, 2021 from: http://images.webofknowledge.com//WOKRS535R111/help/WOS/hp_whatsnew_wos.html.Web of Science. (2021)..Retrieved June 1, 2021from: http://images.webofknowledge.com//WOKRS535R111/help/WOS/hp_whatsnew_wos.html.Search in Google Scholar
Yeo-Teh, N. S. L., & Tang, B. L. (2022). Sustained Rise in Retractions in the Life Sciences Literature during the Pandemic Years 2020 and 2021. Publications, 10(3).Yeo-TehN. S. L. & TangB. L.(2022).Sustained Rise in Retractions in the Life Sciences Literature during the Pandemic Years 2020 and 2021.,10(3).Search in Google Scholar
Zhang, M., & Grieneisen, M. L. (2013). The impact of misconduct on the published medical and non-medical literature, and the news media. Scientometrics, 96(2), 573-587.ZhangM. & GrieneisenM. L.(2013).The impact of misconduct on the published medical and non-medical literature, and the news media.,96(2),573-587.Search in Google Scholar
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.ZhangQ.AbrahamJ. & FuH. Z.(2020).Collaboration and its influence on retraction based on retracted publications during 1978–2017.,125(1),213-232.Search in Google Scholar