共識(shí)、責(zé)任、守護(hù)-全球科研誠信十問報(bào)告-TEN QUESTIONS ON GLOBAL RESEARCH INTEGRITY

中國科學(xué)院文獻(xiàn)情報(bào)中心Consensus,Responsibility,Guardianship————TENQUESTIONSONGLOBALRESEARCHINTEGRITY中國科學(xué)院文獻(xiàn)情報(bào)中心中國科學(xué)院文獻(xiàn)情報(bào)中心Responsibility中國科學(xué)院文獻(xiàn)情報(bào)中心TheNationalScienceLibrary,ChineseAcademyofSciences(NSLC)isdedicatedtoprovidingcomprehensivescientificandtechnologicalinforma-tionservices.Ithaslongsupportednationalscientificdecision-makingandpromotedinnovation.WoltersKluwerisaleadingglobalproviderofpro-fessionalinformationandsoftwaresolutionsinlaw,taxation,fhealthcare.In2020,theNSLCandWoltersKluwerestablishedthe“Medi-calEvaluationandDataIntelligence”JointLaboratorytofosteraresponsi-bleresearchecosystem.Currently,theglobalresearchenvironmentfacessignificantchallenges,withacademicmisconductbeingawidespreadissue.In2021,toaddressthesechallenges,theJointLaboratoryidentifiedkeyissuesrelatedtoresearchintegrityandinitiatedthedevelopmentofthereport“TenQues-tionsonGlobalResearchIntegrity.”Thisreportemploysaquestion-drivenapproach,combiningstatisticaldataonacademicmisconductworldwide,resultsfromaquestionnairesurveyoftheChineseresearchcommunity,andexpertopinionsfromtheresearchandpublishingsectorstoanalyzethecurrentstateofacademicmisconduct.Questions8-10ofthisreportfocusspecificallyonthelifesciences,anareacloselytiedtohumanhealth,pro-vidingvaluableinsightsforfurtherexplorationandsolutions.Duetospaceconstraints,thisreportdoesnotcoverresearchethics.Generally,researchintegrityreferstotheprinciplesoftruthfulness,trans-parency,andfairnessinscientificresearch,ensuringtheaccuracyandreliabilityofresults.Incontrast,researchethicsaddressesinterpersonalrelationships,socialresponsibilities,andtheethicalstandardsthatshouldguideresearchinvolvingsubjectssuchasanimals.Themainfindingsofthisreportareasfollows:●Risingtrendofacademicmisconduct:Thenumberofexposedacademicmisconductcaseshassignificantlyincreasedglobally.Approxi-mately12%ofrespondentsindicatedaseriousissueofscientificdishonesty●Universalityofacademicmisconduct:Misconductisnotconfinedtoaspecificdiscipline;itisprevalentacrossmanyfields.Thelifeahotspotformisconductduetothevolumeancomputersciencefieldhasalsoseenariseinmisconductcases,presentingnewgovernancechallenges.●Acceleratedhandlingofmisconductcases:Thespeedofaddressingacademicmisconductcaseshasimproved,butthereisagreaterneedforaresponsibleandtransparentretractionprocess.●Misunderstandingofretractions:Retractiondoesnotequatetoacademicmisconduct.About16%ofretractionsarisefromhonesterrors,whichshouldbeacknowledgedandaccepted.Thequestionnaireindicatesthatmanyresearchersmistakenlyequateretractionswithmisconduct,high-lightingtheneedforbetterguidanceonthereasonsforretractions.●Ongoingimpactofretractions:Evenafterretraction,somemiscon-ductpaperscontinuetobecitedandnegativelyinfluencethefield.Approx-imately43%ofrespondentsindicatedtheywouldnotverifywhethertheirreferencesincludedretractedpapers,whichmayexacerbatethespreadofacademicmisconduct.●Governancechallengesandresponsestrategies:traditionalandemergingacademicmisconductrequireseffectivegovern-ancethroughtoolsandtechnologytoestablishmonitoringandearlywarn-ingsystems.Collaborationamongmultiplestakeholdersisessingleentitycantakethelead.●Longnon-codingRNAsisparticularlyaffectedbyacademicmis-conductinthelifesciences,withasurgeinmisconductcasessincetheiremergence:Papermillsisthemainmisconductissueinthisresearchtopic.The“TenQuestionsonGlobalResearchIntegrity”reportanalyzestheseissuesfrommultipleperspectivesandincorporatesinsightsfromvar-iousstakeholders.Theaimistoprovidecomprehensiveinformationfortheresearchcommunity,publishingindustry,andpolicymakers.Byenhancingmutualunderstandingandcollaborativegovernance,wehopetopromoteamoreresponsible,transparent,andsustainableresearchecosystem,ensur-ingtheintegrityandreliabilityofscientificresearchandadvancingglobalresearchintegritygovernance.METHODOLOGYTheAMEND1platformintegratesthreetypesofinfor-mation:(1)concerns,corrections,andretractionstate-mentspublishedonjournalwebsites;(2reportedininternationallyrecognizedacademiccommu-misconductreportedbyChineseresearchmanagementdepartments,includingtheMinistryofScienceandTech-nology,theMinistryofEducation,theNationalNaturalScienceFoundationofChina,andtheNationaCommission.ToeffectivelyutiAMENDplatformaccuratelycategorizesthereasonsforretractions,peercomments,andinvestigationreports,alongwiththeirsources.QUESTIONNAIREAquestionnairewasdistributedtoresearchersnation-nalRanking,resultingin1,005responsesfromreseandresearchmanagers.Expertsfromthemedical,scientificintegrityandpub-lishingfieldscommentondata,andpubli1.AMEND(officialwebsite:/)isanacademicwarningplatformincludingretractionsandmisconductpapers,constructedbyNSLC.Formoreinformation,pleasereferto:Li,M.,Chen,F.,Tong,S.,Yang,L.,Shen,Z.Amend:Anintegratedplatformofretractedpapersandconcernedpapers.JournalofDataandInformationScience,9(2),41-55(2024).ExplorationofthecurrentstateofQ1:IsacademicmisconductincreasinglyseriousonQ2:Istheprocessforaddressingmisconductcasesaccelerating?Q3:Isacademicmisconductonlyanissueincertaindisciplines?Q4:Isretractionsynonymouswithacademicmis-Q5:Doesthenegativeimpactofaretractedmiscon-ductpaperceaseafterretraction?Q6:Whoshouldtaketheleadinthegovernanceofacademicmisconduct?Q7:Whatarethefundamentalissuesingoverningacademicmisconduct?Q8:Wherearethe“hotspots”ofacademicmiscon-33ductinthelifesciences?Q9:Arepositiveandnegativeoutpendent?Thechallengesoflongnon-codingRNA.Q10:Whatlessonscanwelearnfrdentsofmisconductinsignificanteventswithinthe01CHAPTERExplorationofthecurrentstateofacademicmisconductQ1:IsacademicmisconductQ2:Istheprocessforaddressingmisconductcasesaccelerating?Q3:Isacademicmisconductonlyanissueincertaindisciplines?02?Academicmisconductisgainingincreasingattentionumberofreportedmisconductcasesrisinthreeyears,thistrendhasaccelerate?AcademicConcerns:AquestionnarespondentsperceiveaseriouslackoftrustinresearchwithinSince1980,thenumberofacademicmisconductpapersreportedworldwidehassteadilyincreased(seeFigure1).Notably,since2020,averageannualrateof73%,reaching5,833in20222.Numberofmisconductpapers70002022,58336000500020002000400030001000198019831985198819901992199419961998200020022004200620082010201220142016201820202022198019831985198819901992199419961998200020022004200620082010201220142016201820202022Figure1.Numberofacademicmisconductpapersworldwidefrom1980to2022Note:Theyearsshowninthefigureindicatewhenthepaperswerepublished.2.Theaverageannualgrowthratereferencedhereisthecompoundannualgrowthrate(CAGR).03Inlightoftheoverallincreaseinscientificpublications,itisimperativenhanceoversightofacademicmisconduct,ensurethereliabilityofscientificresearch,andfosteraresponsibleandhealthyresearchecosystem.?Only16.4%ofrespondentsfeelthatthelackoftrusNote:Thesurveyassessedthedegreeoftrustinresearchonascaleof1to5,with1indicatingalmostnoneand5indicatingveryseriousconcerns.“Thetrendtowardopenaccesshasledtoasignificantincreaseinthevolumeofscientificpapers.Ononehand,thepublicationofresearchpapersthathavenotundergonerigorouspeerreviewhasresultedinamixofquality,whileontheotherhand,issuesofacademicmisconducthavebecomemoreeasilyexposed,leadingtoariseinthesetroublingphenomena.Inmymind,theterm“academicmisconduct”doesnotonlyrefertoarticles,butalsotojournalsandpublishers,forinstancewhentalkingaboutso-called“predatoryjournals”,tocommit-teesthatjudgescientistsbythenumberofpublications,insteadofthescientificvalueoftheirresults,orthatmisusepeerreviewtofavorcertainresearchlines.——RonaldRousseau,KatholiekeUniversiteitLeuvenAcademiaCurrently,mostretractionsweobservearederivedfrominter-nationalpublicationdatabases,suchasWebofScieandPubMed,whichprimarilycatalogEnglish-languagejournalarticles.However,wemustnotoverlooktheissuesofacadmisconductthatcanoccurinarticlespublishedinnativelan-guagesinlocaljournalsacrossvariousAcademia——LiTang,FudanUniversityAsamajorscientificpowertransitionstoaleadingtechno-logicalnation,theoverallincreaseinthenumberofscientificpapersisanaturaloccurrence.However,thisriseinpublications04isalsoaccompaniedbyanincreaseinacademicmisconduct,whichbringsgreaternegativeconsequences.Wehavedevelopedastrongawarenessofthegrowingprominenceofacademicmis-conduct.——ZuiZou,NavyMedicalUniversity“PublishingPublishingindustry“Onthesurface,therehasindeedbeenanincreaseinglobalacademicmisconductcasesinrecentyears.Thisphenomenoniscloselyrelatedtotheoverallriseinresearchoutputandreflectstheheightenedawarenessanddetectioncapabilitiesoftheaca-demiccommunityandpublishers,leadingtotheexposureofmoremisconduct.Thisindicatesthattheacademiccommunityisactivelyengaginginself-purification.Itisimportanttonotethatmanyofthecasesexpyearshavebeenorchestratedbyso-called"papermills,"whichengageinmisconductsuchasbuyingandsellingpapers,manip-ulatingpeerreviews,andmanipulatingcitations.Theseactionsposeasignificantthreattotheacademicecosystem,andtheaca-demiccommunitymusttakethemseriously.Allrelevantpartiesshouldcollaboratecloselytocombattheseorganizedformsofmisconduct.——JasonHu,COPE,United2ActAhypothesiscouldbethatgrowthinscientificresearchandarticleoutputleadstoagrowthinresearchmisconductandprlematicscientificarticles.Itseemsreasonabletoassumetadvancesintechnologyandtheemergenceofpapermillsmayhaveledtoanincreaseinmisconductthatisbeyondthegrowthinresearchandarticleoutput.Itisalsoreasonabletoassumetadvanceshavealsohelpeddiscovermoremisconductthanwaspreviouslyapparent3.——IanBurgess,WoltersKluwerInthepast20years,ithasbecomeapparentthatvirtuallyany3.Xie,Y.,Wang,K.,&Kong,Y.(2021).PrevalenceofResearchMisconductandQuestionableResearchPractices:ASystematicReviewandMeta-Analysis.Scienceandengineeringethics,27(4),41./10.1007/s11948-05institutionorindividualcanestablishanacademicpublishingentityorlaunchanacademicjournalglobally.Thisisacon-cerningissue.Whilecommercialcompaniescanparticipateinacademicpublishing,itshouldnotbetreatedmerelyasatyp-icalbusinessendeavor.Thelackofcomprehensiveoverthroughouttheentireacademicpublishingprocessmakestheincreaseinmisconductunsurprising.——ShuaiYan,IndependentConsultantforAcademicPublishing“06papersspeedingup??Theprocessforaddressingmi?EmphasismustbeplacedonresponsibleretractOverthepast20years,thetimetakentoretractpapersduetomisconducthasdecreasedmarkedlyworldwide.Theaveragetimefrompublicdroppedfrom9.3yearsin2003tojust0.9yearsin2022(seeFigure2).Whileitisimportanttoimprovetheefficiencyoftheretractionprocess,wemustalsoadvocateforresponsiblewithdrawalstoensurefairnessandtransparency,andtopreventpotentialharmandaone-size-fits-allapproach.Timelag(years)86422003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022YearpublishedFigure2.Timelagbetweenpublicationandretractionofacademicmisconductpapersworldwidefrom2003to2022Note:Thereisatimelagbetweenthediscoveryandretractionofacademicmisconductpapers.Astheexactdiscoverydatesareoftenunavailable,thedifferencebetweentheyearofretractionandtheyearofpublicationisusedheretopartiallyillustratethetimelagintheretractionprocess.07“Theimprovedefficiencyofprocessingcasesofmisconductreflectstheincreasedattentionthatpublishersarepayingtotheseissuesandtheinvestmentstheyaremakingtoupholdstandardsofquality,ethics,andintegrity.Inrecentyears,pub-lishershaveinvestedheavilyinnewsystemsandexpandedresearchintegrityteamstomanagecases.Wealsoseethatpublishersarecollaboratingmorecloselytodaytoshareexpe-riences,knowledge,andbuildcollectivesolutionstomoreaccuratelyandswiftlyidentifyanddealwithresearchintegritybreaches.Wehavealsoseenashifttowardsproactivelyseek-ingoutpotentialmisconductandtomovefromremediationtopreventingissuesatthegate.——CarolineSutton, InternationalAssociationofScientific,TechnicalandMedicalPublishers(STM)“08haveahighertotalnumberofacademicmisconductcasescloselylinkedtohumanhealth,incidentsofmisconductcanhaveparticularlywidespreadandsignificantimpactswhenexposed.highfrequencyofretractionsduetomisconduct,withthepropor-tionofretractedpapersbeingthehighestamongalldisciplines.Thispresentsa"newchalleBiomedicalandhealthsciencesBiomedicalandhealthsciencesLifeandearthsciencesSocialsciencesandhumanitiesMathematicsandcomputersciencePhysicalsciencesandengineeringFigure3.Sciencemapofacademicmisconductpapersacrossallfields(2003-2022)4Note:Thecolorofeachcirclerepresentsthecorrespondingfield,andtheareaofthecircleindicatesthenumberofacademicmisconductpapersineachresearchtopic.4.Formoreinformation,pleasereferto:Li,M.,&Shen,Z.(2024).Sciencemapofacademicmisconduct.TheInnovation,5(2).09?Theproportionofacademicmisco?Althoughtheseproporti12.2%ofrespondentsindicatedthatthereisaveryseriotrustinscientificresearchwithintheirfield.Table1.NumberandproportionofpapersonacademicmisconductacrossvariousfieldsResearchfieldNumberofNumberofPercentageoftotalpapersmisconductpapersmisconductpaperBiomedicalandhealthsciencesPhysicalsciencesandengineeringLifeandearthsciencesMathematicsandcomputerSocialsciencesandhumanitiesspots"foracademicmi?Thenegativeeffectsofacademicmisconductwarranttion,asresearchers'perceptionsofscientificintegrityfarexceedofrespondentsbelievethereisaveryseriouslackofintegrityinscientificresearchwithinNote:Thequestionnaireassessedperceptionsofscientificresearchintegrityonascaleof1to5,with1indicatingalmostnoneand5indicatingveryseriouscon-cerns.10AcademiaAcademia“Academicmisconducthaspermeatedvariousdisciplines,becomingasystemicissuewithintheacademiccommunity.Itisparticularlyconcerningthatthenumberofmisconductpapersinthelifesciencesfarexceedsthatinotherfields,posingpoten-tialthreatstohealthandwell-being.Therefore,weneedtofocusontheidentifiedcasesofacademicmisconducttopreventthemfrommisleadingsubsequentresearchandpractice.Additionally,wecallonallstakeholdersinacademiatostrengthentheirreviewprocessestopreventthepublicationofnewproblematicpapersandtoidentifyandcorrectexistingissues,therebymitigatingtheimpactofunreliableknowledgeontheacademiccommunityandthepublic.——MenghuiLi，NationalScienceLibrary,ChineseAcademyofSciencesInthebroadercontext,hospitals,ashealthcareentities,needtoachieveoutcomesinresearrankings,physicianpromotions,andadmissionsareoftendepend-entonthenumberoffundedprojectsandpublishedpapers.Thispressurecompelsclinicianstoengageinbasicresearchalongsidetheirclinicalwork.EveninaffiliatedhospitalsdirectlymanagedbytheNationalHealthCommissionandtheMinistryofEduca-tion,thesupportforbasicresearch,includingavailableplatformsandequipment,islimited.Giventheseconstraintsonresearchconditionsandpersonalenergy,clinicaldoctorsmayopttsourceexperiments,makingitdifficulttoverifytheaccuracyofresultsanddatainterpretation.Furthermore,thereiscurrentlyalackofclearguidelinesregardingtheextentofoutsourcingexper-iments,raisingquestionsaboutaccountabilitywhenthird-partyinstitutionsmaybeinvolvedinacademicmisconductwithoutthedoctors'knowledge.——YangXiao,TheSecondXiangyaHospitalofCentralSouthUniversityFromtheperspectiveoftheproportionofacademicmisconductpapers,itmaynotadequatelyreflecttheseverityofmisconductinthelifesciences.However,whenweconsiderthevisibilityandimpactoftheseincidents,academicmisconductinthisfieldoftenleadstosignificantpublicoutcryandsevereconsequences.Thus,fromthisstandpoint,theissueofacademicmisconductinthelifesciencesisquiteserious.11BeijingMaternalandChildHealthCareHospital,BeijingObstetricsandGynecologyHospital,CapitalMedicalUniversityAcademiaInthelifesciences,isthecurrentevaluclinicaldoctorsunreasonable?PromotionoftenrequiresaNationalNaturalScienceFoundationprojectandthepublica-tionofacertainnumberofpapers.However,clinicaldoctorsinvestsignificanttimeandenergyinsurgeriesandoutpatientcare,andresearchfundingistime-limited.Thissituationleadsmanydoctorstochoosetooutsourceexperimentsduetolim-itedresearchconditionsandpersonalcapacity.Yet,itremainsuncertainwhetherthird-partyinstitutions,asbusinesses,canreplicateexperimentsaccordingtorigorousresearchstandardsandproducereliabledata.Thisuncertaintycancompromisethequalityofpublications,potentiallyresultinginacademicmisconductandcreatingaviciouscycle.Tofundaaddressissuessuchasghostwritingandpapermills,aAcademia——ZuiZou,NavalMedicalUniversity““PublishingindustryThereforeweshouldPublishingindustryAsthedataofthisstudyshows,wearedealingwithaperva-siveproblem,andindeedpublishersareseeingconcentrationsinsomedisciplines.Researchintegritybreachescantakedif-ferentforms,andwearebeginningtoseepatternsofdiffer-enttypesofmisconductindifferentsubjectareas,forexampleimagemanipulationinfieldswhereimaginingisanimportantmeansofreportingdata.Despitetheconcentrationswearesee-ing,publishersdoreportcasesacrossallsubjectareas.Inthisdynamicenvironmentitisimportantthatpublishersandinstitu-tionsremain——CarolineSutton, InternationalAssociationofScientific,TechnicalandMedicalPublishers(STM)12Academicmisconductisnotconfinedtoaspecificdiscipline.Whiletheandseverityofmisconductmayvaryacrossfields,itoccursinthenaturalsciences,socialsciences,andhumanitiesalike.Insomehighlycompetitiveorresource-in-tensiveareas,academicmisconductmaybemoreprevalent.However,theunderly-ingcausesofmisconductacrossdisciplinesareoftensimilar.Weenhanceawarenessofacademicmisconduct,improveacademicevaluationmech-anisms,andincreaseaccountabilityformisconducttoupholdacademicintegrity.——JasonHu,COPE,United2Act“13CHAPTERPractice:challengesandapproachesQ4:Isretractionsynonymouswithacademicmisconduct?Q5:Doesthenegativeimpactofaretractedmisconductpaperceaseafterretraction?Q6:Whoshouldtakethemisconduct?Q7:Whatarethefundamentalissuemisconduct?14esterrorsandnotrelatedtoacademicmisconduct(seeFigure4).cases":Morethanhalfoftherespondentsdonotunderstandthereasonsforretractions,andmanyresearchersequateretractionwithacademicmisconduct.aredifficulttoavoidinscientificresearch.Whenmunity'sspontaneouscorrectiveactions.Academicmisconduct:subjectivemalice,suchasfabrication,falsification,plagiarism,etc.Honesterror:nosubjectivemalice,i.e.,honesterror.Unknown2003-20222003-2007Figure4.Distributionofreasonsforretraction15HowcanweaddressmisunderstimportantconsiderationsforallstakeholderaccurateandtransparentinformationforrAdditionally,itpresentsasignificantchallengeforrgate,evaluate,andhandleretractionsappropriately.Furthermore,itemhonesterrors.?46.7%ofrespondentsreportedunderstandingthevariousrea-sonsforretractionacademicmisconduct.“Oftenacorrectionsufficestotakecareofhonestmistakes.Academia——RonaldRousseau,KatholiekeUniversiteitLeuvenAcademiaScientificgovernanceisacriticalissueinacademiathatcanbemerelydiscussedwithoutaction.Wemustcombatintentionfraudwhilealsoprovidingopportunitiestocorrectscientificerrors.Itisessentialtoenhanceourgovernanceavoidbeingunjustly“——XiaomingZhou,ShandongProvincialHospital,DongyingPeople'sHospitalAuthorsandpublisherspromptlyissuecorrectionsorretractpublications,ifnecessary,theretractionprocessesareclearandthereasonsstated,andauthorsaregivencreditforissuingcorrectionspost-publication.——ALLEA,TheEuropeanCodeofConductforResearchIntegrity5“5.ALLEA(2023)TheEuropeanCodeofConductforResearchIntegrity–RevisedEdition2023.Berlin.DOI16“PerCOPERetractionGucorrectingtheliteratureandalertingreaderstoarticlesthatcontainsuchseriouslyflawedorerroneousconingsandconclusionscannotbereliedupon.Unreliablecdatamayresultfromhonesterror,na?vemistakes,orresearchmis-conduct.Themainpurposeofretractionistocorrecttheliteratureandensureitsintegrityratherthantopunishtheauthors."Journalsareresponsibleformaintainingtheintegrityofthesci-entificrecord.Retractionsaresometimesneededtocorrecthonesterrorsandna?vemistakes.Retractionsofthediscoveryofacademicmisconduct.Researchinstitutionsshouldalwaysconducttheirowninvestigationsintotheresearchpracticeoftheirresearchersandnotrelyonthefactthataretractionhasbeenpublishedasanindicationofmisconduct.——IanBurgess,WoltersKluwerIsretractionsynonymouswithacademicmisconduct?Thepri-marygoalofretractionistoensuretheintegrityandreliabilityofscientificrecords.AccordingtoRetractionWatch,theearliestrecordedretractionoccurredin1756whenBenjaminFranklinpub-lishedaflawedpaperinthePhilosophicSociety.Thesecondkeypointistodeterminewhethertheincomplete-nessoftheresearchwasduetounintentionalerrorsduringtheresearchprocessorintentionalacademicmisconduct.A2022arti-cleinNaturenotedthatatleastoneinevery50retractedpapersviolatestheguidelinessetbytheCommitteeonPublicationEthics(COPE).Thisencompassesvariousissues,includingdatafabrica-tion,plagiarism,fraudulentpeerreview,andsignificanterrors—suchascontaminatedcelllinesorothernon-fraudulentmistakes.Allthesefactorsindicatethattheresearchfindingsareunreliable.Thus,thereasonsforretractioncanbecategorizedintotwotypes:honesterrorsandacademicmisconduct.Bothleadtotheincompletenessofscientificrecords,renderingthemunreliableandnecessitatingretraction.——YuehongZhang,ZhejiangUniversity,Bio-DesignandManufacturing(BDM)“PublishingPublishingindustryDoesthenegativeimpactofaretracted?OngoingImpactofRetractedPapers:Theinfluenceofretractedpaperspersistslongaftertheretraction.Overtimproportionofthesepaperscontinuetobecited,withmanyreceiv-ingpositivecitations,thereby"unreliably"suppresearch.?LimitedAttentiontoRetractions:Aconsiderable42.5%ofrespondentsindicatedthattheydonotcheckwhetherapaperisincludedinthereferencelist.Retractionservesasamechanismtowithdrawandcorrectproblematicpapers.However,doestheimpactofthesepapersceaseimmediatelyuponretraction?Fig-ure5-1illustratesthatretractiondoesnotfullyeliminatetheinfluenceofthesepapers;notably,12.5%arestillcited20yearsafterretraction.Percentage(%)046.942.838.235.833.124.926.427.928.325.126.026.829.223.525.125.730.4YeardifferencebetweentheyearofcitationandtheyearofretractionFigure5-1.Proportionofacademicmisconductpapersstillcitedafterretraction18Figure5-2presentsthreeexamplesofacademicmisconductpapersinthelifesciences,showcasingtheirrelativelystablecitationstatusbeforeandafterretrac-tionoveranextendedperiod.Consistentwithfindingsfromseveralstudies6-10,weobservedthat,asidefromafewnegativecitations,thereweremanyposititionsofthesethreepapers,wheretheywereusedaspartoftheresearchbackground.NumberofNumberofcitationsMeasles,Lancet,1998,2Measles,Lancet,1998,2AldoseReductase,J.Clin.Invest,1ChronicKidneyDisease,Lancet,2003,20090YeardifferencebetweentheyearofcitationandtheyearofretractionFigure5-2.Citationsofthreemisconductpapersinthelifesciencesbeforeandafterretraction??42.5%ofrespondentsdonotactivelyencesincluderetractedpapers.Thisattitude,combinedwiththeprevailingsituation,mayfurtherexacer-batethedisseminationofquestionableresearchfindings.Theretractionofproblematicpapersisnota"magicbullet."Thescientificcom-munitymuststrictlyadheretoacademicnormsandcontinuouslymonitortherelia-bilityofrefere