Change search
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Misconduct, Marginality and Editorial Practices in Management, Business, and Economics Journals
Linköping University, Department of Management and Engineering, Project Innovations and Entrepreneurship. Linköping University, Faculty of Science & Engineering. (PIE)ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3863-1073
Linköping University, Department of Management and Engineering, Project Innovations and Entrepreneurship. Linköping University, Faculty of Science & Engineering. (PIE)ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4233-5138
2016 (English)In: PLoS ONE, ISSN 1932-6203, E-ISSN 1932-6203, Vol. 11, no 7, 1-25 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Objectives

The paper presents data on the two problems of misconduct and marginality in management, business and economics (MBE) journals and their practices to combat these problems.

Design

Data was collected in three phases. First, all publicly retracted papers in MBE journals were identified through keywords searches in 7 major databases (n = 1329 journals). Second, a focused survey was distributed to editors involved in such retractions (n = 64; response rate = 28%). Finally, a survey was administered to all active journals in the seven databases to collect data on editors’ perceptions and practices related to the two problems (n = 937, response rate = 31.8%). Frequency analyses, cross tabulations, and qualitative analyses of open answers were used to examine the data.

Results

184 retracted papers in MBE journals were identified in 2005–2015 (no retraction was found before 2005). From 2005–2007 to 2012–2015, the number of retractions increased by a factor ten with an all-time high in 2015. The survey to journals with reported retractions illustrates how already a few cases of suspected misconduct put a strain on the editorial workload. The survey to all active journals revealed that 42% of the respondents had started to use software to screen all submitted papers, and that a majority recognized the problem of marginality, as indicated by salami-style submissions. According to some editors, reviewers easily spot such submissions whereas others argued that authors may submit thinly sliced papers in parallel to several journals, which means that this practice is only discovered post-publication. The survey question on ways to support creative contributions stimulated a rich response of ideas regarding editorial vision, engaged boards and developmental approaches. The study uses data from three specialized fields, but its findings may be highly relevant to many journals in the social sciences.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Cambridge, UK: Public Library of Science , 2016. Vol. 11, no 7, 1-25 p.
Keyword [en]
Misconduct, Scientific Misconduct, Academic Misconduct, Originality, Salami Publication, Editorial Practices, Publication Ethics, Research Ethics, Management, Business, Economics
National Category
Social Work Work Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-130701DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159492PubMedID: 27454761OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-130701DiVA: diva2:954183
Available from: 2016-08-21 Created: 2016-08-21 Last updated: 2016-09-01Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

Scientific Misconduct(382 kB)15 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 382 kBChecksum SHA-512
af80723392ee3839ac848785ba81bfb1e13195b8797a91981e52385fb84a2a363051eaf61ce59d7a8b5728b578777662ed592ab5cf193cef7d8d31fa6312b27c
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Karabag, Solmaz FilizBerggren, Christian
By organisation
Project Innovations and EntrepreneurshipFaculty of Science & Engineering
In the same journal
PLoS ONE
Social WorkWork Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 15 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

Altmetric score

Total: 83 hits
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link