Ten Years later: Assessments of the integrity of publications from one research group with multiple retractions

When a research group has multiple retracted publications and/or research misconduct by a member is evident, there is a risk that its other publications are unreliable, so a comprehensive assessment of the group’s publications is advisable. We analyzed the comprehensiveness of assessment of the integrity of 300 publications by a research group with numerous retractions and known research misconduct, for 292 of which we raised concerns to publishers and academic institutions between 3/2013 and 2/2020. By 4/2023, 91 (30%) publications had not been assessed by either publisher or academic institution. Publishers had assessed 185 (63%) publications. The 4 academic institutions had assessed 5/36 (14%), 56/216 (26%), 30/50 (60%) and 40/66 (61%) publications. Unprompted assessments, those undertaken without our notification of concerns, occurred for 24 (8%) publications, 3 (1%) by publishers and 21 (7%) by academic institutions. Among 32 journals with ≥2 affected publications, no unprompted assessments of the remaining publication(s) occurred after notification of concerns about the index publication(s). Publishers retracted 58/84 (69%) publications which institutions also assessed and decided needed no editorial action. These analyses demonstrate the failure of publishers and institutions to comprehensively and spontaneously determine the integrity of publications in a setting of known misconduct and multiple retractions.

当某研究团队存在多篇撤稿论文，或其成员存在明确的学术不端行为时，该团队的其他发表成果便存在可靠性风险，因此对该团队的所有学术论文开展全面评估实属必要。本研究针对一个存在大量撤稿记录且被证实存在学术不端行为的研究团队的300篇论文，开展了学术诚信评估覆盖度分析。其中，我们于2013年3月至2020年2月期间，就其中292篇论文向出版商及学术机构提出了学术诚信关切。截至2023年4月，仍有91篇（占比30%）论文未被任何出版商或学术机构开展评估。其中，出版商已完成评估的论文共185篇（占比63%）；4家学术机构分别完成了5/36（14%）、56/216（26%）、30/50（60%）及40/66（61%）的论文评估。未受我方提醒的自发评估（即未收到我方学术关切通知即开展的评估）共涉及24篇论文（占比8%），其中由出版商发起的有3篇（占比1%），由学术机构发起的有21篇（占比7%）。在涉及≥2篇受影响论文的32种期刊中，在针对首批涉事论文的学术关切发出通知后，未再出现针对其余相关论文的自发评估。在经学术机构评估并判定无需采取编辑措施的84篇论文中，出版商已撤稿58篇（占比69%）。本研究分析结果表明，在已知存在学术不端行为且存在多篇撤稿的场景下，出版商与学术机构未能全面且主动地对论文的学术完整性开展核查。