Literature DB >> 24410543

Submitting a manuscript for peer review--integrity, integrity, integrity.

Sean P Murphy1, Christopher Bulman, Behnam Shariati, Laura Hausmann.   

Abstract

Publication of a flawed manuscript has significant consequences for the progress of science. When this proves to be intentional, science is brought into disrepute and this puts even more pressure on the shrinking resources that society is prepared to invest in research. All scientific journals, including the Journal of Neurochemistry, have witnessed a marked increase in the number of corrections and retractions of published articles over the last 10 years, and uncovered a depressingly large number of fabrications among submitted manuscripts. The increase in number of 'spoiled' manuscripts reflects not only the improved methods that journals employ to detect plagiarism in its many forms but also suggests a measurable change in the behavior of authors. The increased policing of submissions by reviewers, editors, and publishers expends time and money. The sanctions imposed by journal editors on authors found guilty of malpractice are transparent and severe.
© 2013 International Society for Neurochemistry.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24410543      PMCID: PMC3926655          DOI: 10.1111/jnc.12644

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurochem        ISSN: 0022-3042            Impact factor:   5.372


  11 in total

1.  Fighting publication bias: introducing the Negative Results section.

Authors:  Ulrich Dirnagl; Martin Lauritzen
Journal:  J Cereb Blood Flow Metab       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 6.200

2.  Who's afraid of peer review?

Authors:  John Bohannon
Journal:  Science       Date:  2013-10-04       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  I copy, therefore I publish.

Authors:  Sergio Della Sala; Jordan Grafman; Roberto Cubelli
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  2013-09-05       Impact factor: 4.027

4.  Research ethics: 3 ways to blow the whistle.

Authors:  Ed Yong; Heidi Ledford; Richard Van Noorden
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2013-11-28       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  China's publication bazaar.

Authors:  Mara Hvistendahl
Journal:  Science       Date:  2013-11-29       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications.

Authors:  Ferric C Fang; R Grant Steen; Arturo Casadevall
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-10-01       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children.

Authors:  A J Wakefield; S H Murch; A Anthony; J Linnell; D M Casson; M Malik; M Berelowitz; A P Dhillon; M A Thomson; P Harvey; A Valentine; S E Davies; J A Walker-Smith
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1998-02-28       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign.

Authors:  Daniele Fanelli
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2013-12-03       Impact factor: 11.069

Review 9.  How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data.

Authors:  Daniele Fanelli
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-05-29       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Why has the number of scientific retractions increased?

Authors:  R Grant Steen; Arturo Casadevall; Ferric C Fang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-07-08       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  1 in total

1.  Scientific misconduct: our first (known) case.

Authors:  Jacyr Pasternak
Journal:  Einstein (Sao Paulo)       Date:  2014 Oct-Dec
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.