An analysis of retractions of papers authored by Scott Reuben, Joachim Boldt and Yoshitaka Fujii
An analysis of retractions of papers authored by Scott Reuben, Joachim Boldt and Yoshitaka Fujii
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/anae.14414
复制
发表时间：
2019-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
10.7
通讯作者：
Yentis, S. M.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
McHugh, U. M.;Yentis, S. M.
我们分析了Scott Reuben，Joachim Boldt和Yoshitaka Fujii撰写的论文被撤回的时间：对这三位麻醉师的调查表明，他们的大部分研究都是不道德或欺诈性的。到目前为止，94%的需要撤回的论文已经撤回;然而，只有85%的撤回通知符合出版伦理委员会制定的指导方针。我们联系了所有期刊的主编和/或出版商，这些期刊包含被确定需要撤回但尚未撤回的文章。为了回应我们的询问，16篇文章已经被撤回;我们已经记录了期刊对剩余论文的回应，并等待未来进一步的撤回。除了确定作者的不当行为外，期刊和出版商处理不道德或欺诈性论文的方式还有改进的余地。
We analysed how long it has taken for papers authored by Scott Reuben, Joachim Boldt and Yoshitaka Fujii to be retracted: investigations into these three anaesthetists have shown much of their research to be unethical or fraudulent. To date, 94% of their combined papers requiring retraction have been retracted; however, only 85% of the retraction notices were compliant with guidelines produced by the Committee on Publication Ethics. We contacted the Editors-in-Chief and/or publishers of all the journals containing articles that had been identified as requiring retraction but had not yet been retracted. In response to our enquiries, 16 articles have since been retracted; we have documented the journals' responses regarding the remaining papers and await further retractions in the future. There is room for improvement in the way that unethical or fraudulent papers are handled by journals and publishers, beyond the identification of the authors' misconduct.