Retraction Watch maintains a "running list" of retracted papers on Covid-19 related research. By the end of September 2020, thirty-three retracted Covid-19 papers were listed. We analysed these retracted papers, focusing specifically on... more
Retraction Watch maintains a "running list" of retracted papers on Covid-19 related research. By the end of September 2020, thirty-three retracted Covid-19 papers were listed. We analysed these retracted papers, focusing specifically on how they have been cited by review papers, and subsequently how they have penetrated and potentially distorted public discourse and legitimate research on Covid-19. The study demonstrates the need for more in-depth studies that focus on the phenomenon of citation pollution. We show that the "Covid-19 publication race", amplified by a pressure-to-publish research culture, distorted published science on Covid-19. We highlight the urgency to engage popular media and critical decision makers on how to distinguish between questionable and legitimate science. We also emphasise the importance of dealing with illegitimate research in a timely manner, both from a scholarly communications and research quality perspective.
Scientific plagiarism is as sui generis as the author function in science. A study of the specificity of scientific plagiarism and the ways in which it diverges from appropriation in other disciplines allows us to question traditional... more
Scientific plagiarism is as sui generis as the author function in science. A study of the specificity of scientific plagiarism and the ways in which it diverges from appropriation in other disciplines allows us to question traditional definitions that focus on the copying of published copyrighted materials. The form of plagiarism that is most damaging to scientists does not involve publications, is largely outside the scope of copyright law, and is unlikely to be detected by textual-similarity algorithms. The same features that make this kind of plagiarism difficult to identify and control also provide a powerful window on the unique construction of authorial credit in science, the problems of peer review, and the limitations of plagiarism surveillance technologies.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) are responsible for the largest proportion of biological science funding in the United States. To protect the public interest in access to publicly funded scientific research, the NIH amended terms... more
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) are responsible for the largest proportion of biological science funding in the United States. To protect the public interest in access to publicly funded scientific research, the NIH amended terms and conditions in funding agreements after 2009, requiring funded Principal Investigators to deposit published copies of research in PubMed, an Open Access repository. Principal Investigators have partially complied with this depository requirement, and the NIH have signaled an intent to enforce grant agreement terms and conditions by stopping funding deposits and engaging in legal action. The global economic value of accessible knowledge offers a unique opportunity for courts to evaluate the impact of enforcing ‘openness’ contract terms and conditions within domestic and international economies for public and economic benefit.Through judicial enforcement of Open Access terms and conditions, the United States can increase economic efficiency for university libraries, academic participants, and public consumers, while accelerating global innovation, improving financial returns on science funding investments, and advancing more efficient scientific publishing models.
Despite its short history, eLife has a substantially high Impact Factor that places it among the best scientific journals in the world, not only exceptionally often quoted, but also read. It is thus easy to see that transparent... more
Despite its short history, eLife has a substantially high Impact Factor that places it among the best scientific journals in the world, not only exceptionally often quoted, but also read. It is thus easy to see that transparent procedures, speed, openness and return to academic freedom does not hinder the scientific process of the highest quality. Morever, such an initiative increases the popularity of papers published in the journal among readers also beyond the academic community. eLife is thus an example of an absolutely new, free and equal journal, as well as a simply ideal journal whose modern character goes hand in hand with locating it within the ethos of free science.
