Retractions in the Engineering Field: A Study on the Web of Science Database

References

• Almeida, R. M. V. R. de, Catelani, F., Fontes-Pereira, A. J., & Gave, N. D. S. (2014). Retractions in general and internal medicine in a high-profile scientific indexing database. Sao Paulo Medical Journal, 134(1), 74–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Almeida, R. M. V. R. de, Rocha, K. A., Catelani, F., Fontes-Pereira, A. J., & Vasconcelos, S. M. R. (2016). Plagiarism allegations account for most retractions in major Latin American/Caribbean databases. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(5), 1447–1456.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amorim, L. (2011). Abaixo a má conduta na ciência [Below the misconduct in science]. Retrieved from http://www.cienciahoje.org.br/noticia/v/ler/id/1647/n/abaixo_a_ma_conduta_na_ciencia.
   Google Scholar
• Atwater, L. E., Mumford, M. D., Schriesheim, C. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (2014). Retraction of leadership articles: Causes and prevention. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(6), 1174–1180.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergada, M. (2012). Science au plagiat [Plagiarism science]. In I. Cojan, G. Fries, D. Grosheny, & O. Parize (Eds.), Expression de l’inovation en geoscience (pp. 51–63). Paris, France: Presses de Mines.
   Google Scholar
• Berlinck, R. G. (2011). The academic plagiarism and its punishments-a review. Revista Brasileira De Farmacognosia, 21(3), 365–372.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bosch, X., Hernández, C., Pericas, J. M., Doti, P., & Marušić, A. (2012). Misconduct policies in high impact biomedical journals. PLoS One, 7(12), e51928.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broad, W. J. (1981). Fraud and the structure of science. Science, 212(4491), 137–141.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broome, M. E. (2004). Self-plagiarism: Oxymoron, fair use, or scientific misconduct? Nursing Outlook, 52(6), 273–274.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carafoli, E. (2015). Scientific misconduct: The dark side of science. Rendiconti Lincei, 26(3), 369–382.
   Google Scholar
• Casadevall, A., & Fang, F. C. (2012). Reforming science: Methodological and cultural reforms. Infection and Immunity, 80, 891–896.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cavalcante, D. H. (2015). Ética a publicação científica. Nutritime Revista Eletrônica, 12(6), 4447–4449.
   Google Scholar
• Chamberlin, D. D., Astrahan, M. M., Blasgen, M. W., Gray, J. N., King, W. F., Lindsay, B. G., & Selinger, P. G. (1981). A history and evaluation of System R. Communications of the ACM, 24(10), 632–646.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cokol, M., Iossifov, I., Rodriguez-Esteban, R., & Rzhetsky, A. (2007). How many scientific papers should be retracted? EMBO Reports, 8(5), 422–423.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cokol, M., Ozbay, F., & Rodriguez-Esteban, R. (2008). Retraction rates are on the rise. EMBO Reports, 9(1), 2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Committee on Publication Ethics. (2009). Retraction guidelines. Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines_0.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Curno, M. J. (2016). Challenges to ethical publishing in the digital era. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 14(1), 4–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Debnath, J. (2016). Plagiarism: A silent epidemic in scientific writing–Reasons, recognition and remedies. Medical Journal Armed Forces India, 72(2), 164–167.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Djalalinia, S., Owlia, P., Afzali, H. M., Ghanei, M., & Peykari, N. (2016). A proposed strategy for research misconduct policy: A review on misconduct management in health research system. International Journal of Preventive Medicine, 7, 92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elliott, T. L., Marquis, L. M., & Neal, C. S. (2013). Business ethics perspectives: Faculty plagiarism and fraud. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(1), 91–99.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PloS One, 4(5), e5738.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox, M. F. (1994). Scientific misconduct and editorial and peer review processes. The Journal of Higher Education, 65(3), 298–309.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grieneisen, M. L., & Zhang, M. (2012). A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature. PLoS One, 7(10), e44118.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gross, C. (2016). Scientific misconduct. The Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 693–711.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., De Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520, 429–431.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jarić, I. (2016). High time for a common plagiarism detection system. Scientometrics, 106(1), 457–459.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karabag, S. F., & Berggren, C. (2012). Retraction, dishonesty and plagiarism: Analysis of a crucial issue for academic publishing, and the inadequate responses from leading journals in economics and management disciplines. Journal of Applied Economics and Business Research, 2(3), 172–183.
   Google Scholar
• La Follette, M. C. (2000). The evolution of the “scientific misconduct” issues: An historical overview. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, 224, 211–215.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu, S. F., Jin, G. Z., Uzzi, B., & Jones, B. (2013). The retraction penalty: Evidence from the Web of Science. Scientific Reports, 3, 3146.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madlock-Brown, C., & Eichmann, D. (2015). The (lack of) impact of retraction on citation networks. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(1), 127–137.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, B. R. (2013). Whither research integrity? Plagiarism, self-plagiarism and coercive citation in an age of research assessment. Research Policy, 42(5), 1005–1014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mojon-Azzi, S. M., & Mojon, D. S. (2004). Scientific misconduct: From salami slicing to data fabrication. Ophthalmic Research, 36(1), 1–3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mumford, M. D., Connelly, S., Brown, R. P., Murphy, S. T., Hill, J. H., Antes, A. L., & Devenport, L. D. (2008). A sensemaking approach to ethics training for scientists: Preliminary evidence of training effectiveness. Ethics & Behavior, 18, 315–339.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pupovac, V., & Fanelli, D. (2015). Scientists admitting to plagiarism: A meta-analysis of surveys. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(5), 1331–1352.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resnik, D. B., & Dinse, G. E. (2013). Scientific retractions and corrections related to misconduct findings. Journal of Medical Ethics, 39, 46–50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russo, M. (2014). Ética e integridade na ciência: Da responsabilidade do cientista à responsabilidade coletiva [Ethics and integrity in science: From the scientist’s responsibility to collective responsibility]. Estudos Avançados, 28(80), 189–198.
   Google Scholar
• Santos, L. H. L. D. (2017). Sobre a integridade ética da pesquisa [On the ethical integrity of research]. Ciência E Cultura, 69(3), 4–5.
   Google Scholar
• Sharma, B. B., & Singh, V. (2011). Ethics in writing: Learning to stay away from plagiarism and scientific misconduct. Lung India: Official Organ of Indian Chest Society, 28(2), 148.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Silva, J. A. T., & Dobránszki, J. (2017). Notices and policies for retractions, expressions of concern, errata and corrigenda: Their importance, content, and context. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(2), 521–554.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, R. (2000). What is research misconduct? The COPE report 2000: The committee on publication ethics. Retrieved from http://publicationethics.org/files/u7141/COPE2000pdfcomplete.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steen, R. G. (2011). Retractions in the scientific literature: Is the incidence of research fraud increasing? Journal of Medical Ethics, 37, 249–253.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steen, R. G., Casadevall, A., & Fang, F. C. (2013). Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? PLoS One, 8(7), e68397.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stroebe, W., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2012). Scientific misconduct and the myth of self-correction in science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 670–688.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, J. R., Nelson, J. K., & Silverman, S. J. (2002). Métodos de Pesquisa em Atividade Física [Research Methods in Physical Activity]. Porto Alegre, Brazil: Artemed Editora.
   Google Scholar
• Van Noorden, R. (2011). The trouble with retractions. Nature, 478(7367), 26–28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Wesel, M. (2016). Evaluation by citation: Trends in publication behavior, evaluation criteria, and the strive for high impact publications. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(1), 199–225.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wager, E., Barbour, V., Yentis, S., & Kleinert, S. (2010). Retractions: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). International Journal of Polymer Analysis and Characterization, 15(1), 2–6.
   Google Scholar
• Wager, E., & Kleinert, S. (2012). Cooperation between research institutions and journals on research integrity cases: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Maturitas, 72(2), 165–169.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weed, D. L. (1998). Preventing scientific misconduct. American Journal of Public Health, 88(1), 125–129.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, P., & Wager, E. (2013). Exploring why and how journal editors retract articles: Findings from a qualitative study. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(1), 1–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yadav, S., Rawal, G., & Baxi, M. (2016). Plagiarism-a serious scientific misconduct. International Journal of Health Science and Research, 6(2), 364–366.
   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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar