Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Science Editing : Science Editing

OPEN ACCESS
SEARCH
Search

Author index

Page Path
HOME > Browse articles > Author index
Search
Viet-Phuong La 2 Articles
Are we at the start of the artificial intelligence era in academic publishing?
Quan-Hoang Vuong, Viet-Phuong La, Minh-Hoang Nguyen, Ruining Jin, Tam-Tri Le
Sci Ed. 2023;10(2):158-164.   Published online July 19, 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.310
  • 2,813 View
  • 250 Download
  • 1 Crossref
PDF

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Akademik Yazımda Yapay Zekâ Kullanımının Etik Açıdan İncelenmesi: ChatGPT Örneği
    Samet Büyükada
    Rize İlahiyat Dergisi.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
Characteristics of retracted articles based on retraction data from online sources through February 2019
Quan-Hoang Vuong, Viet-Phuong La, Manh-Tung Ho, Thu-Trang Vuong, Manh-Toan Ho
Sci Ed. 2020;7(1):34-44.   Published online February 20, 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.187
  • 9,230 View
  • 274 Download
  • 18 Web of Science
  • 17 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDF
Purpose: Although retractions are commonly considered to be negative, the fact remains that they play a positive role in the academic community. For instance, retractions help scientific enterprise perform its self-correcting function and provide lessons for future researchers; furthermore, they represent the fulfillment of social responsibilities, and they enable scientific communities to offer better monitoring services to keep problematic studies in check. This study aims to provide a thorough overview of the practice of retraction in scientific publishing from the first incident to the present.
Methods
We built a database using SQL Server 2016 and homemade artificial intelligence tools to extract and classify data sources including RetractionWatch, official publishers’ archives, and online communities into ready-to-analyze groups and to scan them for new data. After data cleaning, a dataset of 18,603 retractions from 1,753 (when the first retracted paper was published) to February 2019, covering 127 research fields, was established.
Results
Notable retraction events include the rise in retracted articles starting in 1999 and the unusual number of retractions in 2010. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Elsevier, and Springer account for nearly 60% of all retracted papers globally, with Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers contributing the most retractions, even though it is not the organization that publishes the most journals. Finally, reasons for retraction are diverse but the most common is “fake peer review”.
Conclusion
This study suggests that the frequency of retraction has boomed in the past 20 years, and it underscores the importance of understanding and learning from the practice of retracting scientific articles.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Characteristics of retracted research papers before and during the COVID-19 pandemic
    Yuki Furuse
    Frontiers in Medicine.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Retractions in arts and humanities: an analysis of the retraction notices
    Ivan Heibi, Silvio Peroni
    Digital Scholarship in the Humanities.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • A comparative study on characteristics of retracted publications across different open access levels
    Er-Te Zheng, Hui-Zhen Fu
    Journal of Data and Information Science.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Research done wrong: A comprehensive investigation of retracted publications in COVID-19
    Somipam R. Shimray
    Accountability in Research.2023; 30(7): 393.     CrossRef
  • “Research exceptionalism” in the COVID-19 pandemic: an analysis of scientific retractions in Scopus
    Priscila Rubbo, Caroline Lievore, Celso Biynkievycz Dos Santos, Claudia Tania Picinin, Luiz Alberto Pilatti, Bruno Pedroso
    Ethics & Behavior.2023; 33(5): 339.     CrossRef
  • Biased, wrong and counterfeited evidences published during the COVID-19 pandemic, a systematic review of retracted COVID-19 papers
    Angelo Capodici, Aurelia Salussolia, Francesco Sanmarchi, Davide Gori, Davide Golinelli
    Quality & Quantity.2023; 57(5): 4881.     CrossRef
  • Are female scientists underrepresented in self-retractions for honest error?
    Mariana D. Ribeiro, Jesus Mena-Chalco, Karina de Albuquerque Rocha, Marlise Pedrotti, Patrick Menezes, Sonia M. R. Vasconcelos
    Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Causes for Retraction in the Biomedical Literature: A Systematic Review of Studies of Retraction Notices
    Soo Young Hwang, Dong Keon Yon, Seung Won Lee, Min Seo Kim, Jong Yeob Kim, Lee Smith, Ai Koyanagi, Marco Solmi, Andre F Carvalho, Eunyoung Kim, Jae Il Shin, John P A Ioannidis
    Journal of Korean Medical Science.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • The relationship between methodological quality and the use of retracted publications in evidence syntheses
    Caitlin J. Bakker, Nicole Theis-Mahon, Sarah Jane Brown, Maurice P. Zeegers
    Systematic Reviews.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Retractions covered by retraction watch from 2017 to 2022: a perspective from Indian researchers
    Somipam R. Shimray, Sakshi Tiwari, Chennupati Kodand Ramaiah
    Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Non‐author entities accountable for retractions: A diachronic and cross‐disciplinary exploration of reasons for retraction
    Shaoxiong (Brian) Xu, Guangwei Hu
    Learned Publishing.2022; 35(2): 261.     CrossRef
  • Correction of the Scientific Production: Publisher Performance Evaluation Using a Dataset of 4844 PubMed Retractions
    Catalin Toma, Liliana Padureanu, Bogdan Toma
    Publications.2022; 10(2): 18.     CrossRef
  • Can tweets be used to detect problems early with scientific papers? A case study of three retracted COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 papers
    Robin Haunschild, Lutz Bornmann
    Scientometrics.2021; 126(6): 5181.     CrossRef
  • Research ethics: a profile of retractions from world class universities
    Caroline Lievore, Priscila Rubbo, Celso Biynkievycz dos Santos, Claudia Tânia Picinin, Luiz Alberto Pilatti
    Scientometrics.2021; 126(8): 6871.     CrossRef
  • Retractions, Fake Peer Reviews, and Paper Mills
    Horacio Rivera, Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
    Journal of Korean Medical Science.2021;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • A cross-disciplinary and severity-based study of author-related reasons for retraction
    Shaoxiong (Brian) Xu, Guangwei Hu
    Accountability in Research.2021;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Comprehensive Analysis of Retracted Publications in Dentistry: A 23-Year Review
    Shannon Samuel, Joe Mathew Cherian, Abi M. Thomas, Stefano Corbella
    International Journal of Dentistry.2020; 2020: 1.     CrossRef

Science Editing : Science Editing