Purpose:The notable increase in retraction papers has attracted considerable attention from diverse stakeholders.Various sources are now offering information related to research integrity,including concerns voiced on ...Purpose:The notable increase in retraction papers has attracted considerable attention from diverse stakeholders.Various sources are now offering information related to research integrity,including concerns voiced on social media,disclosed lists of paper mills,and retraction notices accessible through journal websites.However,despite the availability of such resources,there remains a lack of a unified platform to consolidate this information,thereby hindering efficient searching and cross-referencing.Thus,it is imperative to develop a comprehensive platform for retracted papers and related concerns.This article aims to introduce“Amend,”a platform designed to integrate information on research integrity from diverse sources.Design/methodology/approach:The Amend platform consolidates concerns and lists of problematic articles sourced from social media platforms(e.g.,PubPeer,For Better Science),retraction notices from journal websites,and citation databases(e.g.,Web of Science,CrossRef).Moreover,Amend includes investigation and punishment announcements released by administrative agencies(e.g.,NSFC,MOE,MOST,CAS).Each related paper is marked and can be traced back to its information source via a provided link.Furthermore,the Amend database incorporates various attributes of retracted articles,including citation topics,funding details,open access status,and more.The reasons for retraction are identified and classified as either academic misconduct or honest errors,with detailed subcategories provided for further clarity.Findings:Within the Amend platform,a total of 32,515 retracted papers indexed in SCI,SSCI,and ESCI between 1980 and 2023 were identified.Of these,26,620(81.87%)were associated with academic misconduct.The retraction rate stands at 6.64 per 10,000 articles.Notably,the retraction rate for non-gold open access articles significantly differs from that for gold open access articles,with this disparity progressively widening over the years.Furthermore,the reasons for retractions have shifted from tradition展开更多
基金NSFC(No.71974017)LIS Outstanding Talents Introducing Program,Bureau of Development and Planning of CAS(2022).
文摘Purpose:The notable increase in retraction papers has attracted considerable attention from diverse stakeholders.Various sources are now offering information related to research integrity,including concerns voiced on social media,disclosed lists of paper mills,and retraction notices accessible through journal websites.However,despite the availability of such resources,there remains a lack of a unified platform to consolidate this information,thereby hindering efficient searching and cross-referencing.Thus,it is imperative to develop a comprehensive platform for retracted papers and related concerns.This article aims to introduce“Amend,”a platform designed to integrate information on research integrity from diverse sources.Design/methodology/approach:The Amend platform consolidates concerns and lists of problematic articles sourced from social media platforms(e.g.,PubPeer,For Better Science),retraction notices from journal websites,and citation databases(e.g.,Web of Science,CrossRef).Moreover,Amend includes investigation and punishment announcements released by administrative agencies(e.g.,NSFC,MOE,MOST,CAS).Each related paper is marked and can be traced back to its information source via a provided link.Furthermore,the Amend database incorporates various attributes of retracted articles,including citation topics,funding details,open access status,and more.The reasons for retraction are identified and classified as either academic misconduct or honest errors,with detailed subcategories provided for further clarity.Findings:Within the Amend platform,a total of 32,515 retracted papers indexed in SCI,SSCI,and ESCI between 1980 and 2023 were identified.Of these,26,620(81.87%)were associated with academic misconduct.The retraction rate stands at 6.64 per 10,000 articles.Notably,the retraction rate for non-gold open access articles significantly differs from that for gold open access articles,with this disparity progressively widening over the years.Furthermore,the reasons for retractions have shifted from tradition
