新冠肺炎大流行中的“研究例外论”:对Scopus科学撤回的分析

IF 1.8 3区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Ethics & Behavior Pub Date : 2022-06-07 DOI:10.1080/10508422.2022.2080067
P. Rubbo, Caroline Lievore, Celso Biynkievycz Dos Santos, C. T. Picinin, L. Pilatti, Bruno Pedroso
{"title":"新冠肺炎大流行中的“研究例外论”:对Scopus科学撤回的分析","authors":"P. Rubbo, Caroline Lievore, Celso Biynkievycz Dos Santos, C. T. Picinin, L. Pilatti, Bruno Pedroso","doi":"10.1080/10508422.2022.2080067","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This study aimed to outline the profile of retractions of scientific articles on COVID-19 published in journals indexed in the Scopus database between 2020 and 2021. To analyze the data, we used a bibliometric technique, with the Bibliometrix package in the R-Studio software, and descriptive statistics. Twenty-nine retractions were analyzed, and we found that the most common reasons for retraction were related to ethical issues and that 68.97% of authors have previously retracted articles. We concluded that there appears to have been a change in the publication policies of journals, which resulted in an increase in scientific retractions related to COVID-19 during the study period.","PeriodicalId":47265,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & Behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“Research exceptionalism” in the COVID-19 pandemic: an analysis of scientific retractions in Scopus\",\"authors\":\"P. Rubbo, Caroline Lievore, Celso Biynkievycz Dos Santos, C. T. Picinin, L. Pilatti, Bruno Pedroso\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10508422.2022.2080067\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This study aimed to outline the profile of retractions of scientific articles on COVID-19 published in journals indexed in the Scopus database between 2020 and 2021. To analyze the data, we used a bibliometric technique, with the Bibliometrix package in the R-Studio software, and descriptive statistics. Twenty-nine retractions were analyzed, and we found that the most common reasons for retraction were related to ethical issues and that 68.97% of authors have previously retracted articles. We concluded that there appears to have been a change in the publication policies of journals, which resulted in an increase in scientific retractions related to COVID-19 during the study period.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47265,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethics & Behavior\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethics & Behavior\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2022.2080067\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics & Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2022.2080067","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要本研究旨在概述2020年至2021年间Scopus数据库索引期刊上发表的关于新冠肺炎的科学文章的撤回情况。为了分析数据,我们使用了文献计量技术,包括R-Studio软件中的Bibliometrix包和描述性统计。对29篇撤回文章进行了分析,我们发现撤回文章最常见的原因与道德问题有关,68.97%的作者以前撤回过文章。我们得出的结论是,期刊的出版政策似乎发生了变化,这导致研究期间与新冠肺炎相关的科学撤回增加。
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
“Research exceptionalism” in the COVID-19 pandemic: an analysis of scientific retractions in Scopus
ABSTRACT This study aimed to outline the profile of retractions of scientific articles on COVID-19 published in journals indexed in the Scopus database between 2020 and 2021. To analyze the data, we used a bibliometric technique, with the Bibliometrix package in the R-Studio software, and descriptive statistics. Twenty-nine retractions were analyzed, and we found that the most common reasons for retraction were related to ethical issues and that 68.97% of authors have previously retracted articles. We concluded that there appears to have been a change in the publication policies of journals, which resulted in an increase in scientific retractions related to COVID-19 during the study period.
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
Ethics & Behavior
Ethics & Behavior Multiple-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
38
期刊最新文献
Publication pressure and questionable research practices: a moderated mediation model Exploring educators’ epistemological worldviews and their influence on pedagogical decision-making in scientific ethics education at Malaysian universities Cultural perspectives on academic dishonesty: exploring racial and ethnic diversity in higher education The impact of perception of school moral atmosphere on college students’ moral sensitivity Educator experiences with postgraduate psychology students exhibiting professional competence issues
×
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