Retraction policies of top scientific journals ranked by impact factor

David B. Resnik · Elizabeth Wager · Grace E. Kissling

71 citations0/0 files storedJournal of the Medical Library Association JMLA

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Publishing and Scholarly Communication Academic Publishing and Open Access Academic integrity and plagiarism

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study gathered information about the retraction policies of the top 200 scientific journals, ranked by impact factor. METHODS: Editors of the top 200 science journals for the year 2012 were contacted by email. RESULTS: One hundred forty-seven journals (74%) responded to a request for information. Of these, 95 (65%) had a retraction policy. Of journals with a retraction policy, 94% had a policy that allows the editors to retract articles without authors' consent. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of journals in this sample had a retraction policy, and almost all of them would retract an article without the authors' permission.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 71 citations exist upstream.

References

2006The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor 2012Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications 2013Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?2011Retracted Science and the Retraction Index 2010Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing?2013Why Growing Retractions Are (Mostly) a Good Sign 2011Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988–2008

Cited by

2016Notices and Policies for Retractions, Expressions of Concern, Errata and Corrigenda: Their Importance, Content, and Context 2022Dynamics of cross-platform attention to retracted papers 2019Is it time to revise the definition of research misconduct?2017Doing the Right Thing: A Qualitative Investigation of Retractions Due to Unintentional Error 2019Journals’ instructions to authors: A cross-sectional study across scientific disciplines 2017A Multidimensional Investigation of the Effects of Publication Retraction on Scholarly Impact

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.