【目的】分析2019—2020年我国学者发表在SCIE收录期刊上的医学研究型论文撤稿原因及其特征,为更有针对性地防范我国医学领域学术不端行为发生、完善科研诚信体系提供参考。【方法】在撤稿观察数据库(Retraction Watch Database)中检索2...【目的】分析2019—2020年我国学者发表在SCIE收录期刊上的医学研究型论文撤稿原因及其特征,为更有针对性地防范我国医学领域学术不端行为发生、完善科研诚信体系提供参考。【方法】在撤稿观察数据库(Retraction Watch Database)中检索2019—2020年撤稿的我国医学SCIE研究型论文,提取撤销论文标题、作者姓名和单位、载文期刊名称、期刊出版商、撤稿原因等信息。应用GraphPad Prism 8.3.0软件进行描述性统计分析,对撤销论文发表期刊的影响因子和撤稿率进行Spearman相关性分析。【结果】2019—2020年,我国医学SCIE研究型论文累计撤稿479篇,撤稿原因主要为关注或问题、重复发表、研究错误等,具体撤稿理由包括数据问题、图片问题、方法与结果问题、作者无回应等。撤销论文分布于194种期刊,其中PLoS ONE、European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences、Journal of Cellular Biochemistry、OncoTargets and Therapy、Biosciences Reports居撤销论文数量前5位,Springer Nature、Elsevier和PLoS居撤销论文出版商前3位。撤销论文载文期刊影响因子与期刊撤稿率呈负相关。【结论】我国学者发表的医学类SCIE研究型论文因数据和图片等问题而被撤稿的概率较高,应加强我国医学领域科研诚信体系建设,减少学术不端行为发生。展开更多
Objective:To investigate the distribution of academic conflicts, if any, in medical research articles. Methods:Twenty-seven and 25 medical research articles in the field of internal medicine were selected from English...Objective:To investigate the distribution of academic conflicts, if any, in medical research articles. Methods:Twenty-seven and 25 medical research articles in the field of internal medicine were selected from English and Chinese respectable jour nals, respectively. Then, the speech acts that reflected a conflict between a scientist's knowledge claim and another scientist's knowledge claim were manually searched and recorded in each paper. Data were analyzed using non-parametric Chi-test. Results:There were 123 academic conflicts recorded in the English corpus and 49 Academic Conflicts in the Chinese corpus. Significant difference was observed in the overall frequency of academic conflicts between the English and Chinese medical discourse (p=0.001). Besides, as for the distribution within research articles, introduction and discussion sections were the sections where Academic Conflict speech acts were most likely to occur in both corpra. Conclusion:The Chinese scholars are less likely to criticize peers. Introduction and discussion sections were the sections where Academic Conflict speech acts were most likely to occur. Our results are in agreement with previous results and confirmed the claim that highly different cultures vary in their discourse preferences. Our findings are of pedagogical significance.展开更多
文摘【目的】分析2019—2020年我国学者发表在SCIE收录期刊上的医学研究型论文撤稿原因及其特征,为更有针对性地防范我国医学领域学术不端行为发生、完善科研诚信体系提供参考。【方法】在撤稿观察数据库(Retraction Watch Database)中检索2019—2020年撤稿的我国医学SCIE研究型论文,提取撤销论文标题、作者姓名和单位、载文期刊名称、期刊出版商、撤稿原因等信息。应用GraphPad Prism 8.3.0软件进行描述性统计分析,对撤销论文发表期刊的影响因子和撤稿率进行Spearman相关性分析。【结果】2019—2020年,我国医学SCIE研究型论文累计撤稿479篇,撤稿原因主要为关注或问题、重复发表、研究错误等,具体撤稿理由包括数据问题、图片问题、方法与结果问题、作者无回应等。撤销论文分布于194种期刊,其中PLoS ONE、European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences、Journal of Cellular Biochemistry、OncoTargets and Therapy、Biosciences Reports居撤销论文数量前5位,Springer Nature、Elsevier和PLoS居撤销论文出版商前3位。撤销论文载文期刊影响因子与期刊撤稿率呈负相关。【结论】我国学者发表的医学类SCIE研究型论文因数据和图片等问题而被撤稿的概率较高,应加强我国医学领域科研诚信体系建设,减少学术不端行为发生。
文摘Objective:To investigate the distribution of academic conflicts, if any, in medical research articles. Methods:Twenty-seven and 25 medical research articles in the field of internal medicine were selected from English and Chinese respectable jour nals, respectively. Then, the speech acts that reflected a conflict between a scientist's knowledge claim and another scientist's knowledge claim were manually searched and recorded in each paper. Data were analyzed using non-parametric Chi-test. Results:There were 123 academic conflicts recorded in the English corpus and 49 Academic Conflicts in the Chinese corpus. Significant difference was observed in the overall frequency of academic conflicts between the English and Chinese medical discourse (p=0.001). Besides, as for the distribution within research articles, introduction and discussion sections were the sections where Academic Conflict speech acts were most likely to occur in both corpra. Conclusion:The Chinese scholars are less likely to criticize peers. Introduction and discussion sections were the sections where Academic Conflict speech acts were most likely to occur. Our results are in agreement with previous results and confirmed the claim that highly different cultures vary in their discourse preferences. Our findings are of pedagogical significance.
