Opening the black box of article retractions: exploring the causes and consequences of data management errors.

IF 2.9 3区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES Royal Society Open Science Pub Date : 2024-12-18 eCollection Date: 2024-12-01 DOI:10.1098/rsos.240844
Marton Kovacs, Marton A Varga, Dominik Dianovics, Russell A Poldrack, Balazs Aczel
{"title":"Opening the black box of article retractions: exploring the causes and consequences of data management errors.","authors":"Marton Kovacs, Marton A Varga, Dominik Dianovics, Russell A Poldrack, Balazs Aczel","doi":"10.1098/rsos.240844","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The retraction of an article is probably the most severe outcome of a scientific project. While great emphasis has been placed on articles retracted due to scientific misconduct, studies show many retractions are due to honest errors. Unfortunately, in most cases, retraction notices do not provide sufficient information to determine the specific types and causes of these errors. In our study, we explored the research data management (RDM) errors that led to retractions from the authors' perspectives. We collected responses from 97 researchers from a broad range of disciplines using a survey design. Our exploratory results suggest that just about any type of RDM error can lead to the retraction of a paper, and these errors can occur at any stage of the data management workflow. The most frequently occurring cause of an error was inattention. The retraction was an extremely stressful experience for the majority of our sample, and most surveyed researchers introduced changes to their data management workflow as a result. Based on our findings, we propose that researchers revise their data management workflows as a whole instead of focusing on certain aspects of the process, with particular emphasis on tasks vulnerable to human fallibility.</p>","PeriodicalId":21525,"journal":{"name":"Royal Society Open Science","volume":"11 12","pages":"240844"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11651896/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Royal Society Open Science","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.240844","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The retraction of an article is probably the most severe outcome of a scientific project. While great emphasis has been placed on articles retracted due to scientific misconduct, studies show many retractions are due to honest errors. Unfortunately, in most cases, retraction notices do not provide sufficient information to determine the specific types and causes of these errors. In our study, we explored the research data management (RDM) errors that led to retractions from the authors' perspectives. We collected responses from 97 researchers from a broad range of disciplines using a survey design. Our exploratory results suggest that just about any type of RDM error can lead to the retraction of a paper, and these errors can occur at any stage of the data management workflow. The most frequently occurring cause of an error was inattention. The retraction was an extremely stressful experience for the majority of our sample, and most surveyed researchers introduced changes to their data management workflow as a result. Based on our findings, we propose that researchers revise their data management workflows as a whole instead of focusing on certain aspects of the process, with particular emphasis on tasks vulnerable to human fallibility.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
打开文章撤稿的黑箱:探讨数据管理错误的原因和后果。
撤回一篇文章可能是一个科学项目最严重的后果。虽然人们非常重视由于科学不端行为而被撤稿的文章,但研究表明,许多撤稿是由于诚实的错误。不幸的是,在大多数情况下,撤稿通知没有提供足够的信息来确定这些错误的具体类型和原因。在我们的研究中,我们从作者的角度探讨了导致撤稿的研究数据管理(RDM)错误。我们使用调查设计收集了来自广泛学科的97名研究人员的回答。我们的探索性结果表明,几乎任何类型的RDM错误都可能导致论文被撤回,这些错误可能发生在数据管理工作流程的任何阶段。出错最常见的原因是注意力不集中。对于我们的大多数样本来说,撤稿是一个非常有压力的经历,因此大多数被调查的研究人员都对他们的数据管理工作流程进行了更改。基于我们的研究结果,我们建议研究人员从整体上修改他们的数据管理工作流程,而不是专注于流程的某些方面,特别强调易受人为错误影响的任务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Royal Society Open Science
Royal Society Open Science Multidisciplinary-Multidisciplinary
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
508
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Royal Society Open Science is a new open journal publishing high-quality original research across the entire range of science on the basis of objective peer-review. The journal covers the entire range of science and mathematics and will allow the Society to publish all the high-quality work it receives without the usual restrictions on scope, length or impact.
期刊最新文献
Crystallographic and computational characterization and in silico target fishing of six aromatic and aliphatic sulfonamide derivatives. Evolution under intensive industrial breeding: skull size and shape comparison between historic and modern pig lineages. Investigating the encapsulation of lead bromide perovskite with poly(3-bromothiophene) for improved aqua stability and enhanced fluorescence memory. Modelling transmission and control of Toxoplasma gondii in New Zealand farmland. Pigs, people, and proximity: a 6000-year isotopic record of pig management in Ireland.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1