Agarwal, A., and J. Ioannidis. 2019. PREDIMED trial of Mediterranean diet: retracted, republished, still trusted? BMJ (Clinical Research ed.) 364: l341. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l341.
Al-Khatib, A., and J. A. Teixeira da Silva. 2019. Rewarding the quantity of peer review could harm biomedical research. Biochemia Medica 29 (2): 020201. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2019.020201.
Allen, R. M. 2021. When peril responds to plague: predatory journal engagement with COVID-19. Library Hi Tech 39 (3): 746–760. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-01-2021-0011.
Andersen, L. E., and K. B. Wray. 2019. Detecting errors that result in retractions. Social Studies of Science 49 (6): 942–954. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312719872008.
Andersen, L. E., and K. B. Wray. 2021. Rethinking the value of author contribution statements in light of how research teams respond to retractions. Episteme, (in press). https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2021.25.
Arend, R. J. 2019. Conflicts of interest as corrupting the checks and balances in the postpublication oversight of academic business journals. Journal of Management Inquiry 28 (1): 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492617715323.
Avenell, A., F. Stewart, A. Grey, G. Gamble, and M. Bolland. 2019. An investigation into the impact and implications of published papers from retracted research: systematic search of affected literature. BMJ Open 9 (10): e031909. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031909; corrigendum: BMJ Open 9 (12): e031909corr1. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031909corr1.
Baldwin, M. 2020. “Peer Review,” Encyclopedia of the History of Science, 15 pp. https://doi.org/10.34758/srde-jw27.
Barbour, V., T. Bloom, J. Lin, and E. Moylan. 2017. Amending published articles: time to rethink retractions and corrections? [version 1]. F1000Research 6: 1960. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.13060.1.
Bik, E. M., F. C. Fang, A. L. Kullas, R. J. Davis, and A. Casadevall. 2018. Analysis and correction of inappropriate image duplication: the Molecular and Cellular Biology experience. Molecular and Cellular Biology 38 (20): e00309–e00318. https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.00309-18.
Bishop, D. V. M. 2018. Fallibility in science: responding to errors in the work of oneself and others. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 1 (3): 432–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918776632.
Bolland, M. J., A. Grey, A. Avenell, and A. A. Klein. 2021. Correcting the scientific record – A broken system? Accountability in Research 28 (5): 265–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2020.1852938.
Bonnechère, B. 2020. Preprints in medicine: useful or harmful? Frontiers in Medicine 7: 579100. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2020.579100.
Bordignon, F. 2020. Self-correction of science: a comparative study of negative citations and post-publication peer review. Scientometrics 124 (2): 1225–1239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03536-z.
Boxheimer, E. W., and B. Pulverer. 2019. Self-correction prevents withdrawal syndrome. The EMBO Journal 38 (18): e70001. https://doi.org/10.15252/embj.201970001.
Brembs, B. 2019. Reliable novelty: new should not trump true. PLoS Biology 17 (2): e3000117. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000117.
Brito, J. J., J. Li, J. H. Moore, C. S. Greene, N. A. Nogoy, L. X. Garmire, and S. Mangul. 2020. Recommendations to enhance rigor and reproducibility in biomedical research. GigaScience 9 (6): giaa056. https://doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giaa056.
Brown, A. W., Kaiser, K. A., and Allison, D. B. 2018. Issues with data and analyses: Errors, underlying themes, and potential solutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 115 (11): 2563–2570. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708279115
Bülow, W., T. E. Godskesen, G. Helgesson, and S. Eriksson. 2020. Why unethical papers should be retracted. Journal of Medical Ethics 47: e32. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-106140.
Byrne, J. A., Y. Park, R. A. West, A. Capes-Davis, B. Favier, G. Cabanac, and C. Labbé. 2021. The thin ret(raction) line: biomedical journal responses to incorrect non-targeting nucleotide sequence reagents in human gene knockdown publications. Scientometrics 126 (4): 3513–3534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03871-9.
Cagney, H., R. Horton, A. James, S. Kleinert, Z. Nyakoojo, L. Pryce, E. Grainger, D. Stanley, and H. Wang. 2016. Retraction and republication – a new tool for correcting the scientific record? European Science Editing 42 (1): 3–7.
Dal-Ré, R., and C. Ayuso. 2021. For how long and with what relevance do genetics articles retracted due to research misconduct remain active in the scientific literature. Accountability in Research 28 (5): 280–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2020.1835479.
Dobránszki, J., and Teixeira da Silva, J. A. 2019. Corrective factors for author-and journal-based metrics impacted by citations to accommodate for retractions. Scientometrics 121 (1): 387–398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03190-0.
Dunleavy, D. J. 2021. The cultivation of social work knowledge: toward a more robust system of peer review. Families in Society 102 (4): 556–568. https://doi.org/10.1177/10443894211012243.
Dwivedi, Y. K., L. Hughes, C. M. K. Cheung, K. Conboy, Y.-Q. Duan, R. Dubey, M. Janssen, P. Jones, M. Sigala, and G. Viglia. 2022. Editorial: How to develop a quality research article and avoid a journal desk rejection. International Journal of Information Management 62: 102426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102426.
Fanelli, D. 2016. Set up a ‘self-retraction’ system for honest errors. Nature 531 (7595): 415. https://doi.org/10.1038/531415a.
Fanelli, D., J. P. A. Ioannidis, and S. Goodman. 2018. Improving the integrity of published science: An expanded taxonomy of retractions and corrections. European Journal of Clinical Investigation 48 (4): e12898. https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.12898.
Fanelli, D., J. Wong, and D. Moher. 2021. What difference might retractions make? An estimate of the potential epistemic cost of retractions on meta-analyses. Accountability in Research, (in press). https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2021.1947810.
Frampton, G., L. Woods, and D. A. Scott. 2021. Inconsistent and incomplete retraction of published research: A cross-sectional study on Covid-19 retractions and recommendations to mitigate risks for research, policy and practice. PLoS ONE 16 (10): e0258935. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258935.
Furuya-Kanamori, L., C. Xu, L. Lin, T. Doan, H. Chu, L. Thalib, and S. Doi. 2020. P value-driven methods were underpowered to detect publication bias: analysis of Cochrane review meta-analyses. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 118: 86–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.11.011.
Grey, A., A. Avenell, G. Gamble, and M. Bolland. 2020. Assessing and raising concerns about duplicate publication, authorship transgressions and data errors in a body of preclinical research. Science and Engineering Ethics 26 (4): 2069–2096. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00152-w.
Hamilton, D. G. 2019. Continued citation of retracted radiation oncology literature — do we have a problem? International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics 103 (5): 1036–1042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.11.014.
Harms, P., and M. Credé. 2020. Bringing the review process into the 21st century: Post-publication peer review. Industrial and Organizational Psychology 13 (1): 51–53. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2020.13.
Heckers, S., H. Bauchner, and A. Flanagin. 2015. Retracting, replacing, and correcting the literature for pervasive error in which the results change but the underlying science is still reliable. JAMA Psychiatry 72 (12): 1170–1171. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.2278.
Horbach, S. P. J. M. 2021. No time for that now! Qualitative changes in manuscript peer review during the Covid-19 pandemic. Research Evaluation 30 (3): 231–239. rvaa037. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvaa037.
Hosseini, M., M. Hilhorst, I. de Beaufort, and D. Fanelli. 2018. Doing the right thing: a qualitative investigation of retractions due to unintentional error. Science and Engineering Ethics 24 (1): 189–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9894-2.
Hu, G.-W., and S.-X. Xu. 2020. Agency and responsibility: A linguistic analysis of culpable acts in retraction notices. Lingua 247: 102954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102954.
Ioannidis, J. P. A. 2005. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine 2 (8): e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.
Kojaku, S., G. Livan, and N. Masuda. 2021. Detecting anomalous citation groups in journal networks. Scientific Reports 11: 14524. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-93572-3.
Lu, S.-F., G.-Z. Jin, B. Uzzi, and B. Jones. 2013. The retraction penalty: evidence from the Web of Science. Scientific Reports 3: 3146. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep03146.
Lutmar, C., and Y. Reingewertz. 2021. Academic in-group bias in the top five economics journals. Scientometrics 126 (12): 9543–9556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04174-9.
Malički, M., A. Utrobičić, and A. Marušić. 2019. Correcting duplicate publications: follow up study of MEDLINE tagged duplications. Biochemia Medica 29 (1): 010201. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2019.010201.
Marasović, T., A. Utrobiĉić, and A. Maruŝić. 2018. Transparency of retracting and replacing articles. The Lancet 391 (10127): 1244–1245. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30487-2.
Memon, A. R. 2020. Similarity and plagiarism in scholarly journal submissions: bringing clarity to the concept for authors, reviewers and editors. Journal of Korean Medical Science 35 (27): e217. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e217.
Mirowski, P. 2018. The future(s) of open science. Social Studies of Science 48 (2): 171–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312718772086.
Mlinarić, A., M. Horvat, and V.Š. Smolčić. 2017. Dealing with the positive publication bias: Why you should really publish your negative results. Biochemia Medica 27 (3): 030201. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2017.030201.
Nelson, N. 2020. Towards an expanded conception of publication bias. Journal of Trial and Error 1 (1): 52–58. https://doi.org/10.36850/mr2.
Ortega, J. L. 2022. Classification and analysis of PubPeer comments: How a web journal club is used. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 73 (5): 655–670. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24568.
Page, M. J., J. Sterne, J. Higgins, and M. Egger. 2021. Investigating and dealing with publication bias and other reporting biases in meta-analyses of health research: A review. Research Synthesis Methods 12 (2): 248–259. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1468.
Pranckutė, R. 2021. Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: the titans of bibliographic information in today’s academic world. Publications 9 (1): 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9010012.
Pulverer, B. 2015. When things go wrong: correcting the scientific record. The EMBO Journal 34 (20): 2483–2485. https://doi.org/10.15252/embj.201570080.
Resnik, D. B., and E. M. Smith. 2020. Bias and groupthink in science’s peer-review system. In Groupthink in Science, eds. D. Allen, and J. Howell, 99–113. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36822-7_9.
Rivera, H., and J. A. Teixeira da Silva. 2021. Retractions, fake peer review, and paper mills. Journal of Korean Medical Science 36 (24): e165. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2021.36.e165.
Roberts, L. L., H. O. Sibum, and C. C. M. Mody. 2020. Integrating the history of science into broader discussions of research integrity and fraud. History of Science 58 (4): 354–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0073275320952268.
Rubbo, P., L. A. Pilatti, and C. T. Picinin. 2019. Citation of retracted articles in engineering: a study of the Web of Science database. Ethics & Behavior 29 (8): 661–679. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2018.1559064.
Smaldino, P. E., and R. McElreath. 2016. The natural selection of bad science. Royal Society Open Science 3: 160384. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160384.
Smith, E. M. 2021. Reimagining the peer-review system for translational health science journals. Clinical and Translational Science 14 (4): 1210–1221. https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.13050.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. 2013. Responsibilities and rights of authors, peer reviewers, editors and publishers: a status quo inquiry and assessment. The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology 7(Special Issue 1): 6–15.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. 2015a. Debunking post-publication peer review. International Journal of Education and Information Technology 1 (2): 34–37.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. 2015b. Negative results: negative perceptions limit their potential for increasing reproducibility. Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine 14: 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12952-015-0033-9.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. 2015c. For whom the bell tolls: downstream effects of retractions and the bump-on effects of post-publication peer review. International Journal of Plant Biology & Research 3 (4): 1050.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. 2015d. The importance of retractions and the need to correct the downstream literature. Journal of Scientific Exploration 29 (2): 353–356.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. 2016a. Science watchdogs. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 5 (3): 13–15. https://doi.org/10.5901/ajis.2016.v5n3p13.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. 2016b. Retractions represent failure. Journal of Educational and Social Research 6 (3): 11–12. https://doi.org/10.5901/jesr.2016.v6n3p11.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. 2016c. An error is an error… is an erratum. The ethics of not correcting errors in the science literature. Publishing Research Quarterly 32 (3): 220–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-016-9469-0.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. 2016d. Silent or stealth retractions, the dangerous voices of the unknown, deleted literature. Publishing Research Quarterly 32 (1): 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-015-9439-y.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. 2017a. It may be easier to publish than to correct or retract faulty biomedical literature. Croatian Medical Journal 58 (1): 75–79. https://doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2017.58.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. 2017b. Preprints should not be cited. Current Science 113 (6): 1026–1027.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. 2017c. Preprints: ethical hazard or academic liberation? KOME 5 (2): 73–80. https://doi.org/10.17646/KOME.2017.26.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. 2017d. Intellectual phishing, hidden conflicts of interest and hidden data: new risks of preprints. Journal of Advocacy, Research and Education 4 (3): 136–146.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. 2018a. Freedom of speech and public shaming by the science watchdogs. Journal of Advocacy, Research and Education 5 (1): 11–22.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. 2018b. The preprint debate: what are the issues? Medical Journal Armed Forces India 74 (2): 162–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mjafi.2017.08.002.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. 2020a. ORCID: Issues and concerns about its use for academic purposes and research integrity. Annals of Library and Information Studies 67 (4): 246–250.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. 2020b. Are negative reviews, predatory reviewers or failed peer review rewarded at Publons? International Orthopaedics 44 (10): 2193–2194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04587-w.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. 2020c. Reasons for citing retracted literature are not straightforward, and solutions are complex. Journal of Applied Physiology 129 (1): 3. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00258.2020.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. 2020d. Three new suggested guidelines for increased transparency regarding open access article processing charges (APCs). Epistēmēs Metron Logos 4: 4–7. https://doi.org/10.12681/eml.24208.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. 2021a. Silently withdrawn or retracted preprints related to Covid-19 are a scholarly threat and a potential public health risk: theoretical arguments and suggested recommendations. Online Information Review 45 (4): 751–757. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-08-2020-0371.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. 2021b. Two disturbing trends about expressions of concern. Medical Journal Armed Forces India (in press). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mjafi.2020.12.004.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. 2021c. Is the validity, credibility and reliability of literature indexed in PubMed at risk? Medical Journal Armed Forces India (in press). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mjafi.2021.03.009.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. 2021d. Citations and gamed metrics: academic integrity lost. Academic Questions 34 (1): 96–99. https://doi.org/10.51845/34s.1.18.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. 2022a. Does the culture of science publishing need to change from the status quo principle of “trust me”? Nowotwory Journal of Oncology 7 (2): 137–138. https://doi.org/10.5603/NJO.a2022.0001
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. 2022b. A dangerous triangularization of conflicting values in academic publishing: ORCID, fake authors, and the lack of criminalization of the creators of fake elements. Epistēmēs Metron Logos 7: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.12681/eml.27238.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., and A. Al-Khatib. 2021. Ending the retraction stigma: encouraging the reporting of errors in the biomedical record. Research Ethics 17 (2): 251–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016118802970.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., and A. Al-Khatib. 2019. The Clarivate™ Analytics acquisition of Publons – an evolution or commodification of peer review? Research Ethics 15 (3–4): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016117739941.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., and A. Al-Khatib. 2021a. Ending the retraction stigma: encouraging the reporting of errors in the biomedical record. Research Ethics 17 (2): 251–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016118802970.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., and A. Al-Khatib. 2021b. How do Clarivate Analytics and Publons propose to fortify peer review in the COVID-19 era? Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences 16 (2): 139–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtumed.2021.01.008.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., A. Al-Khatib, and J. Dobránszki. 2017. Fortifying the corrective nature of post-publication peer review: identifying weakness, use of journal clubs, and rewarding conscientious behavior. Science and Engineering Ethics 23 (4): 1213–1226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9854-2.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., A. Al-Khatib, V. Katavić, and H. Bornemann-Cimenti. 2018. Establishing sensible and practical guidelines for desk rejections. Science and Engineering Ethics 24 (4): 1347–1365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9921-3.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., and H. Bornemann-Cimenti. 2017. Why do some retracted papers continue to be. cited? Scientometrics 110 (1): 365–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2178-9.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., and J. Dobránszki. 2015a. Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance 22 (1): 22–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.899909.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., and J. Dobránszki. 2015b. The authorship of deceased scientists and their posthumous responsibilities. Science Editor (CSE) 38 (3/4): 98–100.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., and J. Dobránszki. 2017a. Compounding error: the afterlife of bad science. Academic Questions 30 (1): 65–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12129-017-9621-0.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., and J. Dobránszki. 2017b. Notices and policies for retractions, expressions of concern, errata and corrigenda: their importance, content, and context. Science and Engineering Ethics 23 (2): 521–554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9769-y.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., and J. Dobránszki. 2018a. Editors moving forward: stick to academic basics, maximize transparency and respect, and enforce the rules. Recenti Progressi in Medicina 109 (5): 263–266. https://doi.org/10.1701/2902.29244.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., and J. Dobránszki. 2018b. Citation inflation: the effect of not correcting the scientific literature sufficiently, a case study in the plant sciences. Scientometrics 116 (2): 1213–1222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2759-x.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., and J. Dobránszki. 2018c. Citing retracted papers affects education and librarianship, so distorted academic metrics need a correction. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication 6: eP2199. https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2258.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., and J. Dobránszki. 2019. Preprint policies among 14 academic publishers. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45 (2): 162–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2019.02.009.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., J. Dobránszki, and A. Al-Khatib. 2016. Legends in science: from boom to bust. Publishing Research Quarterly 32 (4): 313–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-016-9476-1.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., J. Dobránszki, P. Tsigaris, and A. Al-Khatib. 2019. Predatory and exploitative behaviour in academic publishing: An assessment. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45 (6): 102071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2019.102071.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., and M. F. Shaughnessy. 2017. An interview with Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva: insight into improving the efficiency of the publication process. North American Journal of Psychology 19 (2): 325–338.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., and Q.-H. Vuong. 2021a. The right to refuse unwanted citations: Rethinking the culture of science around the citation. Scientometrics 126 (6): 5355–5360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03960-9.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., and Q.-H. Vuong. 2021b. Do legitimate publishers profit from error, misconduct or fraud? Exchanges 8 (3): 55–68. https://doi.org/10.31273/eirj.v8i3.785.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., and Q.-H. Vuong. 2022. Fortification of retraction notices to improve their transparency and usefulness. Learned Publishing 35 (2): 292–299. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1409.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., and Y. Yamada. 2021. An extended state of uncertainty: A snap-shot of expressions of concern in neuroscience. Current Research in Behavioral Sciences 2: 100045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crbeha.2021.100045.
The Lancet. 2015. Editorial. Correcting the scientific literature: retraction and republication. The Lancet 385 (9966): 394. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60137-4.
The Lancet. 2020. COVID-19: a stress test for trust in science. The Lancet 396 (10254): 799. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31954-1.
Triggle, C. R., R. MacDonald, D. J. Triggle, and D. Grierson. 2022. Requiem for impact factors and high publication charges. Accountability in Research 29 (3): 133–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2021.1909481.
Turrentine, M. 2017. It’s all how you “spin” it: interpretive bias in research findings in the obstetrics and gynecology literature. Obstetrics & Gynecology 129 (2): 239–242. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001818.
Valdez, D., C. J. Vorland, A. W. Brown, E. Mayo-Wilson, J. Otten, R. Ball, S. Grant, R. Levy, Svetina Valdivia, D., & D. B. Allison. 2020. Improving open and rigorous science: ten key future research opportunities related to rigor, reproducibility, and transparency in scientific research. F1000Research 9: 1235. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.26594.1.
van der Heyden, M. A. G. 2021. The 1-h fraud detection challenge. Naunyn-Schmiedeberg’s Archives of Pharmacology 394 (8): 1633–1640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00210-021-02120-3.
Vorland, C. J., Brown, A. W., Ejima, K., Mayo-Wilson, E., Valdez, D., and Allison, D. B. 2020. Toward fulfilling the aspirational goal of science as self-correcting: A call for editorial courage and diligence for error correction. European Journal of Clinical Investigation 50 (2): e13190. https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.13190.
Vuong, Q. H. 2020. The limitations of retraction notices and the heroic acts of authors who correct the scholarly record: An analysis of retractions of papers published from 1975 to 2019. Learned Publishing 33 (2): 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1282.
Wang, D.-G., L.-M. Chen, L. Wang, F. Hua, J. Li, Y.-X. Li, Y.-G. Zhang, H. Fan, W.-M. Li, and M. Clarke. 2021. Abstracts for reports of randomised trials of COVID-19 interventions had low quality and high spin. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 139: 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.06.027.
Xu, S.-X., and G.-W. Hu. 2018. Retraction notices: who authored them? Publications 6 (1): 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications6010002.
Yamada, Y. 2021. How to protect the credibility of articles published in predatory journals. Publications 9 (1): 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9010004.
Yarborough, M., R. Nadon, and D. G. Karlin. 2019. Four erroneous beliefs thwarting more trustworthy research. eLife 8: e45261. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.45261.