SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Analysis of Retracted Manuscripts in Chemistry: Errors vs Misconduct
16 references·0 citing·45 second hop
Analysis of Retracted Manuscripts in Chemistry: Errors vs Misconduct (2023)Analysis of Retracted Manuscripts in Chem…Risks and Benefits of Large Language Models for the Environment (2023)Risks and Benefits of Large L…Growth rates of modern science: a latent piecewise growth curve approach to model publication numbers from established and new literature databases (2021)Growth rates of modern scienc…The limitations to our understanding of peer review (2020)The limitations to our unders…The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity (2020)The Hong Kong Principles for …The natural selection of bad science (2016)The natural selection of bad …Does it take too long to publish research? (2016)Does it take too long to publ…Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics (2015)Bibliometrics: The Leiden Man…Why Growing Retractions Are (Mostly) a Good Sign (2013)Why Growing Retractions Are (…Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications (2012)Misconduct accounts for the m…Intended and unintended consequences of a publish‐or‐perish culture: A worldwide survey (2012)Intended and unintended conse…A Comprehensive Survey of Retracted Articles from the Scholarly Literature (2012)A Comprehensive Survey of Ret…The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index (2010)The rate of growth in scienti…Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time (2009)Is science becoming more inte…The Perverse Effects of Competition on Scientists’ Work and Relationships (2007)The Perverse Effects of Compe…Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals (2006)Peer Review: A Flawed Process…Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals (2006)Peer review: a flawed process…The Matthew Effect in Science (1968)The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered. (1968)An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output (2005)Mapping of available health research and development data: what's there, what's missing, and what role is there for a global observatory? (2013)Making literature reviews more reliable through application of lessons from systematic reviews (2015)Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research (1997)The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor (2006)The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact? (2015)Science Mapping: A Systematic Review of the Literature (2017)Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021)The New Production of Knowledge (1994)Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (2006)A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society (2007)Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature (2010)How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management (2012)Patterns of connections and movements in dual‐map overlays: A new method of publication portfolio analysis (2013)Scientists behaving badly (2005)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data (2009)Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank (2013)Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? (2013)Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition (2016)Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (1990)Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (1991)How Many Participants Do We Have to Include in Properly Powered Experiments? A Tutorial of Power Analysis with Reference Tables (2019)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses in ecology and evolutionary biology: a PRISMA extension (2021)Replicability, Robustness, and Reproducibility in Psychological Science (2021)Bias in peer review (2012)Fighting reviewer fatigue or amplifying bias? Considerations and recommendations for use of ChatGPT and other large language models in scholarly peer review (2023)Guidance for Authors, Peer Reviewers, and Editors on Use of AI, Language Models, and Chatbots (2023)The entities enabling scientific fraud at scale are large, resilient, and growing rapidly (2025)A manifesto for reproducible science (2017)The preregistration revolution (2018)Methodology over metrics: current scientific standards are a disservice to patients and society (2021)Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands (2022)A typology of validity: content, face, convergent, discriminant, nomological and predictive validity (2024)Little Science, Big Science (1963)The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1963)Networks of Scientific Papers (1965)Artificial intelligence in systematic reviews: promising when appropriately used (2023)ChatGPT and the rise of large language models: the new AI-driven infodemic threat in public health (2023)Science education in an age of misinformation (2023)Scientific peer review (2011)What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: a systematic evidence map (2020)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2015Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics2,816 cited
  • 2012Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications1,231 cited
  • 2010The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index964 cited
  • 2006Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals868 cited
  • 2016The natural selection of bad science858 cited
  • 2006Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals794 cited
  • 2009Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time786 cited
  • 2020The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity545 cited
  • 2021Growth rates of modern science: a latent piecewise growth curve approach to model publication numbers from established and new literature databases504 cited
  • 2020The limitations to our understanding of peer review383 cited
  • 2007The Perverse Effects of Competition on Scientists’ Work and Relationships383 cited
  • 2012Intended and unintended consequences of a publish‐or‐perish culture: A worldwide survey355 cited
  • 2012A Comprehensive Survey of Retracted Articles from the Scholarly Literature355 cited
  • 2013Why Growing Retractions Are (Mostly) a Good Sign272 cited

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work

  • 2023Risks and Benefits of Large Language Models for the Environment272 cited
  • 2016Does it take too long to publish research?267 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.