Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ ZENODOarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Conference object . 2020
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Other literature type . 2020
License: CC BY
Data sources: ZENODO
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Conference object . 2020
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

Sunlight is the best disinfectant: retractions and the role of Open Access

Authors: Schmitz, Jasmin;

Sunlight is the best disinfectant: retractions and the role of Open Access

Abstract

Retractions can be considered as part of the “self-purification” of science: If a journal article contains serious errors or violations of good scientific practices the publication should be retracted. Depending on the type of defectiveness, notices about problematic journal articles can be published as “correction” (for minor flaws), “expression of concern” (for initial suspicion raised by the editorial board) or proper “retraction” (for misconduct) (Sox & Drummond, doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-144-8-200604180-00123). Especially in medicine and other health sciences the detection of problematic publications and their retraction is essential in order to protect patients and public health. Studies show that there is a rise in the number of retractions (e.g. Li et al., doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S151745). Reasons might be an increase of awareness of editorial boards taking action much faster (Steen et al., doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068397) also shown in the fact that more and more journals give themselves a “retraction policy” (Resnik et al. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.103.3.006). Open access as an essential part of open science movement is intended to raise the transparency of science as such. The overall question therefore is: Which role does open access play with regard to retractions? The poster will present results from an initial – kind of proof of concept – analysis of retractions collected from the “Retraction Watch Database” (http://retractiondatabase.org) for articles from the health sciences published in 2019. With the help of the SHERPA/RoMEO database (http://sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/index.php) journals are assigned to the categories open access or hybrid. There will be a check on article level for publications from hybrid journals to see if they are published via an open access option. The analysis will focus on the questions: What is the share of open access among retracted articles? Is there a difference in the justification for retractions between open access and paywall articles and in the time lag from publication to retraction? For those publications behind a paywall there will be checks in Unpaywall (https://unpaywall.org/) and Open Access Button (https://openaccessbutton.org/) to identify open access versions to include this aspect into the analysis as well. The results will serve as a basis for a discussion whether “openness” on the level of publication has an effect on the self-purification process of science.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Open Access, Good Scientific Practice, Retractions

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    OpenAIRE UsageCounts
    Usage byUsageCounts
    visibility views 11
    download downloads 11
  • 11
    views
    11
    downloads
    Powered byOpenAIRE UsageCounts
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
visibility
download
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
views
OpenAIRE UsageCountsViews provided by UsageCounts
downloads
OpenAIRE UsageCountsDownloads provided by UsageCounts
0
Average
Average
Average
11
11
Green
Related to Research communities