Is gold open access helpful for academic purification? A causal inference analysis based on retracted articles in biochemistry

被引:9
作者
Zheng, Er -Te [1 ]
Fang, Zhichao [1 ,2 ]
Fu, Hui-Zhen [3 ]
机构
[1] Renmin Univ China, Sch Informat Resource Management, Beijing, Peoples R China
[2] Leiden Univ, Ctr Sci & Technol Studies CWTS, Leiden, Netherlands
[3] Zhejiang Univ, Sch Publ Affairs, Dept Informat Resources Management, Hangzhou, Peoples R China
关键词
Open access; Academic misconduct; Scientometrics; Retraction time lag; Post-retraction citation; Causal inference; PROPENSITY SCORE; JOURNALS; SCIENCE; REPRODUCIBILITY; PUBLICATIONS; CREDIBILITY; CITATIONS;
D O I
10.1016/j.ipm.2023.103640
中图分类号
TP [自动化技术、计算机技术];
学科分类号
0812 ;
摘要
The relationship between transparency and credibility has long been a subject of theoretical and analytical exploration within the realm of social sciences, and it has recently attracted increasing attention in the context of scientific research. Retraction serves as a pivotal mechanism in addressing concerns about research integrity. This study aims to empirically examining the relationship between open access level and the effectiveness of current mechanism, specifically academic purification centered on retracted articles. In this study, we used matching and Difference-in-Difference (DiD) methods to examine whether gold open access is helpful for academic purification in biochemistry field. We collected gold open access (Gold OA) and non -open access (non-OA) biochemistry retracted articles as the treatment group, and matched them with corresponding unretracted articles as the control group from 2005 to 2021 based on Web of Science and Retraction Watch database. The results showed that compared to non-OA, Gold OA is advantageous in reducing the retraction time of flawed articles, but does not demonstrate a significant advantage in reducing citations after retraction. This indicates that Gold OA may help expedite the detection and retraction of flawed articles, ultimately promoting the practice of responsible research.
引用
收藏
页数:18
相关论文
共 98 条
[71]   When things go wrong: correcting the scientific record [J].
Pulverer, Bernd .
EMBO JOURNAL, 2015, 34 (20) :2483-2485
[72]   Credibility: A multidisciplinary framework [J].
Rieh, Soo Young ;
Danielson, David R. .
ANNUAL REVIEW OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2007, 41 :307-364
[73]   THE CENTRAL ROLE OF THE PROPENSITY SCORE IN OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES FOR CAUSAL EFFECTS [J].
ROSENBAUM, PR ;
RUBIN, DB .
BIOMETRIKA, 1983, 70 (01) :41-55
[74]   Influence of accessibility (open and toll-based) of scholarly publications on retractions [J].
Shah, Tariq Ahmad ;
Gul, Sumeer ;
Bashir, Saimah ;
Ahmad, Suhail ;
Huertas, Assumpcio ;
Oliveira, Andrea ;
Gulzar, Farzana ;
Najar, Ashiq Hussain ;
Chakraborty, Kanu .
SCIENTOMETRICS, 2021, 126 (06) :4589-4606
[75]   Researchers' interpretations of research integrity: A qualitative study [J].
Shaw, David ;
Satalkar, Priya .
ACCOUNTABILITY IN RESEARCH-POLICIES AND QUALITY ASSURANCE, 2018, 25 (02) :79-93
[76]   Has China?s Young Thousand Talents program been successful in recruiting and nurturing top-caliber scientists? [J].
Shi, Dongbo ;
Liu, Weichen ;
Wang, Yanbo .
SCIENCE, 2023, 379 (6627) :62-65
[77]   Forest restoration or propaganda? The need for Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) scores to uphold research integrity [J].
Slingsby, Jasper A. .
SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, 2020, 116 (7-8) :100-103
[78]   Fortification of retraction notices to improve their transparency and usefulness [J].
Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A. ;
Vuong, Quan-Hoang .
LEARNED PUBLISHING, 2022, 35 (02) :292-299
[79]   Problems with Traditional Science Publishing and Finding a Wider Niche for Post-Publication Peer Review [J].
Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A. ;
Dobranszki, Judit .
ACCOUNTABILITY IN RESEARCH-ETHICS INTEGRITY AND POLICY, 2015, 22 (01) :22-40
[80]   Repairing research integrity [J].
Titus, Sandra L. ;
Wells, James A. ;
Rhoades, Lawrence J. .
NATURE, 2008, 453 (7198) :980-982