Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
An analysis of availability and implications of unlabeled retracted articles on Sci-Hub
2
Zitationen
4
Autoren
2025
Jahr
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Researchers are increasingly accessing scientific articles through unauthorized websites like Sci-Hub. Sci-Hub contains retracted articles, including those which are not labelled as retracted, and this is a potential threat to academic research. METHODS: This study analyses the extent of the availability of retracted articles within the Sci-Hub, particularly focusing on the presence of unlabeled retracted articles (URA) which may inadvertently be used in subsequent research, thus propagating flawed findings. The authors identified 16925 English-language research articles retracted between 2003 and 2022 indexed in the Web of Science and Scopus databases. These articles were cross-checked with Sci-Hub to ascertain whether they were appropriately labelled as retracted. RESULTS: The investigation revealed that 84.83% of the retracted articles available on Sci-Hub do not have any indication of their retracted status. These URA could potentially be reused by researchers, unaware of their retracted status. The availability of URA in the field of health sciences is particularly high, which indicates a significant risk of their unintended use and further citation in future research. CONCLUSIONS: This study underscores the crucial need for stringent implementation of regulatory measures on retraction suggested by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) or newly published National Information Standards Organization (NISO) recommendations.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications
2022 · 2.691 Zit.
Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach
1998 · 2.518 Zit.
Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling
2012 · 2.320 Zit.
Comparison of Two Methods to Detect Publication Bias in Meta-analysis
2006 · 2.213 Zit.
How Does ChatGPT Perform on the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE)? The Implications of Large Language Models for Medical Education and Knowledge Assessment
2023 · 1.977 Zit.