Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Multiple Publications: The Main Reason for the Retraction of Papers in Computer Science

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Advances in Information and Communication Networks (FICC 2018)

Part of the book series: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing ((AISC,volume 886))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

This paper intends to review the reasons for the retraction over the last decade. The paper particularly aims at reviewing these reasons with reference to computer science field to assist authors in comprehending the style of writing. To do that, a total of 36 retracted papers found on the Web of Science within Jan 2007 through July 2017 are explored. Given the retraction notices which are based on 10 common reasons, this paper classifies the two main categories, namely, random and non-random retraction. Retraction due to the duplication of publications scored the highest proportion of all other reasons reviewed.

The authors would like to thank Sunway University Research Office also partially funded for the support of this conference presentation. This study is also partially funded by Sunway University Internal Research Grant No. INTS-2017-SST-DCIS-01.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Web of Science, “Retracted Paper: Web of Science - All Databases Help,” Web of Science Website, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://images.webofknowledge.com/WOKRS522_2R1/help/WOK/hs_document_types.html.

  2. 2.

    https://clarivate.com/products/web-of-science/web-science-form/web-science-core-collection/.

References

  1. Steen, R.G.: Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing? J. Med. Ethics 37(4), 249–253 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Wager, E., Williams, P.: Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988–2008. J. Med. Ethics 37(9), 567–570 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Fang, F.C., Steen, R.G., Cadadevall, A.: Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109(42), 17028–17033 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Grieneisen, M.L., Zhang, M.: A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature. PLoS ONE 7(10), e44118 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Zhang, M., Grieneisen, M.L.: The impact of misconduct on the published medical and non-medical literature, and the news media. Scientometrics 96(2), 573–587 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Fanelli, D.: Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign. PLoS Med. 10(12), 1–6 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Carafoli, E.: Scientific misconduct: the dark side of science. Rend. Lincei 26, 369–382 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Rosenkrantz, A.B.: Retracted publications within radiology journals. Am. J. Roentgenol. 206(2), 231–235 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Mongeon, P., Lariviere, V.: Costly collaborations: the impact of scientific fraud on co-authors’ careers. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 67(3), 535–542 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lu, S.F., Jin, G.Z., Uzzi, B., Jones, B.: The retraction penalty: evidence from the web of science. Sci. Rep. 3, 3146 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Marcovitch, H.: Misconduct by researchers and authors. Gac. Sanit. 21(6), 492–499 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Nambiar, R., Tilak, P., Cerejo, C.: Quality of author guidelines of journals in the biomedical and physical sciences. Assoc. Learn. Prof. Soc. 27(3), 201–206 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Steen, R.G.: Misinformation in the medical literature: what role do error and fraud play? J. Med. Ethics 37, 498–503 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Qi, X., Deng, H., Guo, X.: Characteristics of retractions related to faked peer reviews: an overview. Postgrad. Med. J. 93(1102), 499 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. He, T.: Retraction of global scientific publications from 2001 to 2010. Scientometrics 96(2), 555–561 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Murugesan, R.: What Happens When Ethical Violations are Detected in Research? 13 December 2014

    Google Scholar 

  17. Bilbrey, E., O’Dell, N., Creamer, J.: A novel rubric for rating the quality of retraction notices. Publications 2(1), 14–26 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Wager, E., Barbour, V., Yentis, S., Kleinert, S.: Retractions: guidance from the committee on publication ethics (COPE). Maturitas 64(4), 201–203 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Yan, J., MacDonald, A., Baisi, L.-P., Evaniew, N., Bhandari, M., Ghert, M.: Retractions in orthopaedic research - a systematic review. Bone Joint Res. 5(6), 263–268 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hesselmann, F., Graf, V., Schmidt, M., Reinhart, M.: The visibility of scientific misconduct: a review of the literature on retracted journal articles. Curr. Sociol. 1–32 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Stretton, S., et al.: Publication misconduct and plagiarism retractions: a systematic, retrospective study. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 28(10), 1575–1583 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Trikalinos, N.A., Evangelou, E., Ioannidis, J.P.A.: Falsified papers in high-impact journals were slow to retract and indistinguishable from nonfraudulent papers. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 61(5), 464–470 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Parrish, D., Noonan, B.: Image manipulation as research misconduct. Sci. Eng. Ethics 15(2), 161–167 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Steen, R.G.: Retractions in the scientific literature: do authors deliberately commit research fraud? J. Med. Ethics 37(2), 113–117 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Roig, M.: Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: a guide to ethical writing, pp. 1–71 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Redman, B.K., Yarandi, H.N., Merz, J.F.: Empirical developments in retraction. J. Med. Ethics 34(11), 807–809 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hosseini, M., Hilhorst, M., de Beaufort, I., Fanelli, D.: Doing the right thing: a qualitative investigation of retractions due to unintentional error. Sci. Eng. Ethics, no. office 321 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Wager, E.: Ethical publishing: the innocent author’s guide to avoiding misconduct. Menopause Int. 13(3), 98–102 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Benson, P.J.: Seven sins in publishing (but who’s counting…). Ann. R. Coll. Surg. Engl. 98(1), 1–5 (2016)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  30. Bohannon, J.: Who’s afraid of peer review? Science 342(6154), 60–65 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Schulzrinne, H.: Double submissions - publishing misconduct or just effective dissemination? ACM SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 39(3), 40–42 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Khajuria, A., Agha, R.: Fraud in scientific research - birth of the concordat to uphold research integrity in the United Kingdom. J. R. Soc. Med. 107(2), 61–65 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Li, Y.: Text-based plagiarism in scientific publishing: issues, developments and education. Sci. Eng. Ethics 19(3), 1241–1254 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Moylan, E.C., Kowalczuk, M.K.: Why articles are retracted: a retrospective cross-sectional study of retraction notices at BioMed Central. Br. Med. J. Publ. Gr. 6(11), e012047 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Mohan, M., Shetty, D., Shetty, T., Pandya, K.: Rising from plagiarising. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 14(3), 538–540 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Retraction Watch: Can a tracking system for peer reviewers help stop fakes? (2017). http://retractionwatch.com/2017/06/23/can-tracking-system-peer-reviewers-help-stop-fakes/

  37. Castillo, M.: The fraud and retraction epidemic. Am. J. Neuroradiol. 35(9), 1653–1654 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Andreescu, L.: Self-plagiarism in academic publishing: the anatomy of a misnomer. Sci. Eng. Ethics 19(3), 775–797 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Shah, N.: Ethical issues in biomedical research and publication. J. Conserv. Dent. 14(3), 205–208 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Wager, E.: Publication ethics: whose problem is it? Insights 25(3), 294–299 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Mandal, M., Bagchi, D., Basu, S.R.: Scientific misconducts and authorship conflicts: Indian perspective. Indian J. Anaesth. 59(7), 400–405 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Markowitz, D.M., Hancock, J.T.: Linguistic Obfuscation in Fraudulent Science. J. Lang. Soc. Psychol. 35(4), 435–445 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computing and Information Systems, Sunway University, Bandar Sunway, Malaysia

    Mymoona Dawood Abdulmalek Al-Hidabi & Phoey Lee Teh

Authors
  1. Mymoona Dawood Abdulmalek Al-Hidabi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Phoey Lee Teh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mymoona Dawood Abdulmalek Al-Hidabi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Science and Engineering, Saga University, Saga, Japan

    Kohei Arai

  2. The Science and Information (SAI) Organization, London, UK

    Supriya Kapoor

  3. The Science and Information (SAI) Organization, Bradford, UK

    Rahul Bhatia

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Al-Hidabi, M.D.A., Teh, P.L. (2019). Multiple Publications: The Main Reason for the Retraction of Papers in Computer Science. In: Arai, K., Kapoor, S., Bhatia, R. (eds) Advances in Information and Communication Networks. FICC 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 886. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03402-3_35

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation