纠正科学记录

IF 0.7 3区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Pragmatics and Society Pub Date : 2023-06-06 DOI:10.1075/ps.22008.lin
Yuting Lin
{"title":"纠正科学记录","authors":"Yuting Lin","doi":"10.1075/ps.22008.lin","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The retraction of a previously published research article, often due to the discovery of fraud or scientific error, can pose considerable threat to an author’s career and reputation. This paper examines legitimation strategies in the retraction notice (RN), a document in which authors formally announce their decision to retract an article. By analyzing 300 RNs published between 2010–2021 in Q1 biomedical journals, this study finds that 76% RNs contain at least one legitimation strategy, with Mortification, Full/Partial Denial, and Corrective Action being the most frequently used. Moreover, a comparison of RNs that report fraud, misconduct, error, unreliable data/results, and other similar matters shows that fraud-related RNs have the highest incidence of legitimation strategies. Authors committing fraud often employ Mortification, Disclaimer, and Reassurance, while authors reporting scientific errors put more emphasis on Good Intention and Perseverance. This study contributes to the understanding of legitimation and image repair in scientific discourse.","PeriodicalId":44036,"journal":{"name":"Pragmatics and Society","volume":"165 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Correcting the scientific record\",\"authors\":\"Yuting Lin\",\"doi\":\"10.1075/ps.22008.lin\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The retraction of a previously published research article, often due to the discovery of fraud or scientific error, can pose considerable threat to an author’s career and reputation. This paper examines legitimation strategies in the retraction notice (RN), a document in which authors formally announce their decision to retract an article. By analyzing 300 RNs published between 2010–2021 in Q1 biomedical journals, this study finds that 76% RNs contain at least one legitimation strategy, with Mortification, Full/Partial Denial, and Corrective Action being the most frequently used. Moreover, a comparison of RNs that report fraud, misconduct, error, unreliable data/results, and other similar matters shows that fraud-related RNs have the highest incidence of legitimation strategies. Authors committing fraud often employ Mortification, Disclaimer, and Reassurance, while authors reporting scientific errors put more emphasis on Good Intention and Perseverance. This study contributes to the understanding of legitimation and image repair in scientific discourse.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44036,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pragmatics and Society\",\"volume\":\"165 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pragmatics and Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.22008.lin\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pragmatics and Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.22008.lin","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

先前发表的研究文章的撤回,通常是由于发现欺诈或科学错误,可能对作者的职业生涯和声誉造成相当大的威胁。本文研究了撤稿通知(RN)中的合法性策略,即作者正式宣布撤稿决定的文件。通过分析2010年至2021年间发表在第一季度生物医学期刊上的300个RNs,本研究发现76%的RNs至少包含一种合法化策略,其中最常用的是处罚、完全/部分否认和纠正措施。此外,对报告欺诈、不当行为、错误、不可靠数据/结果和其他类似事项的注册护士的比较表明,与欺诈相关的注册护士采用合法化策略的比例最高。犯欺诈罪的作者通常会使用“惩戒”、“免责声明”和“保证”,而报告科学错误的作者则更强调“善意”和“坚持不懈”。本研究有助于理解科学话语中的正当性与形象修复。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Correcting the scientific record
Abstract The retraction of a previously published research article, often due to the discovery of fraud or scientific error, can pose considerable threat to an author’s career and reputation. This paper examines legitimation strategies in the retraction notice (RN), a document in which authors formally announce their decision to retract an article. By analyzing 300 RNs published between 2010–2021 in Q1 biomedical journals, this study finds that 76% RNs contain at least one legitimation strategy, with Mortification, Full/Partial Denial, and Corrective Action being the most frequently used. Moreover, a comparison of RNs that report fraud, misconduct, error, unreliable data/results, and other similar matters shows that fraud-related RNs have the highest incidence of legitimation strategies. Authors committing fraud often employ Mortification, Disclaimer, and Reassurance, while authors reporting scientific errors put more emphasis on Good Intention and Perseverance. This study contributes to the understanding of legitimation and image repair in scientific discourse.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
42
期刊最新文献
“Not everything is on the hostess” Code accommodation as a measure of inclusion for bilingual people living with dementia of the Alzheimer’s type Verbal play in dementia care “Let’s Just Forget It!” Learning from initial reviews of multilingual graphics illustrating dementia caregiving
×
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