lynx   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0159492.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Misconduct, Marginality and Editorial Practices in Management, Business and Economics Journals

Author

Listed:
  • Solmaz Filiz Karabag
  • Christian Berggren
Abstract
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.

Suggested Citation

  • Solmaz Filiz Karabag & Christian Berggren, 2016. "Misconduct, Marginality and Editorial Practices in Management, Business and Economics Journals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-25, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0159492
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159492
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0159492
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0159492&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0159492?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gary A. Hoover, 2004. "Whose Line Is It? Plagiarism in Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(2), pages 487-493, June.
    2. Furman, Jeffrey L. & Jensen, Kyle & Murray, Fiona, 2012. "Governing knowledge in the scientific community: Exploring the role of retractions in biomedicine," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 276-290.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Cox, Adam & Craig, Russell & Tourish, Dennis, 2018. "Retraction statements and research malpractice in economics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5), pages 924-935.
    2. Wesley Mendes-Da-Silva & Cristiana Cerqueira Leal, 2021. "Salami Science in the Age of Open Data: Déjà lu and Accountability in Management and Business Research," RAC - Revista de Administração Contemporânea (Journal of Contemporary Administration), ANPAD - Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Administração, vol. 25(1), pages 200194-2001.
    3. Berggren, Christian & Karabag, Solmaz Filiz, 2019. "Scientific misconduct at an elite medical institute: The role of competing institutional logics and fragmented control," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 428-443.
    4. S. P. J. M. Horbach & W. Halffman, 2019. "The ability of different peer review procedures to flag problematic publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 339-373, January.
    5. Gary A. Hoover & Christian Hopp, 2017. "What Crisis? Taking Stock of Management Researchers' Experiences with and Views of Scholarly Misconduct," CESifo Working Paper Series 6611, CESifo.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Felicitas Hesselmann & Verena Wienefoet & Martin Reinhart, 2014. "Measuring Scientific Misconduct—Lessons from Criminology," Publications, MDPI, vol. 2(3), pages 1-10, July.
    2. Marion Schmidt, 2024. "Why do some retracted articles continue to get cited?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(12), pages 7535-7563, December.
    3. Liu, Xiaojuan & Wang, Chenlin & Chen, Dar-Zen & Huang, Mu-Hsuan, 2022. "Exploring perception of retraction based on mentioned status in post-retraction citations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3).
    4. Jeremy Hall & Ben R. Martin, 2019. "Towards a Taxonomy of Academic Misconduct: The Case of Business School Research," SPRU Working Paper Series 2019-02, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    5. Frederique Bordignon, 2020. "Self-correction of science: a comparative study of negative citations and post-publication peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1225-1239, August.
    6. Judit Bar-Ilan & Gali Halevi, 2017. "Post retraction citations in context: a case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 547-565, October.
    7. Dato, Simon & Nieken, Petra, 2014. "Gender differences in competition and sabotage," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 64-80.
    8. Necker, Sarah, 2014. "Scientific misbehavior in economics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(10), pages 1747-1759.
    9. Gary Charness & David Masclet & Marie Claire Villeval, 2014. "The Dark Side of Competition for Status," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(1), pages 38-55, January.
    10. Horbach, S.P.J.M.(Serge) & Halffman, W.(Willem), 2019. "The extent and causes of academic text recycling or ‘self-plagiarism’," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 492-502.
    11. Salim Moussa, 2022. "The propagation of error: retracted articles in marketing and their citations," Italian Journal of Marketing, Springer, vol. 2022(1), pages 11-36, March.
    12. Zaggl, Michael A., 2017. "Manipulation of explicit reputation in innovation and knowledge exchange communities: The example of referencing in science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(5), pages 970-983.
    13. Altug YALCINTAS, 2020. "Why is economics not part of a system of scientific ethics? A review essay on Wilfred Dolfsma and Ioana Negru’s The Ethical Formation of Economists," The Journal of Philosophical Economics, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, The Journal of Philosophical Economics, vol. 13(2), pages 202-214, November.
    14. Azoulay, Pierre & Bonatti, Alessandro & Krieger, Joshua L., 2017. "The career effects of scandal: Evidence from scientific retractions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(9), pages 1552-1569.
    15. Emma Bilbrey & Natalie O'Dell & Jonathan Creamer, 2014. "A Novel Rubric for Rating the Quality of Retraction Notices," Publications, MDPI, vol. 2(1), pages 1-13, January.
    16. Katrin Hussinger & Lorenzo Palladini, 2024. "Information accessibility and knowledge creation: the impact of Google’s withdrawal from China on scientific research," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(6), pages 753-783, July.
    17. Valérie Mignon & Marc Joëts, 2025. "Slaying the Undead: How Long Does It Take to Kill Zombie Papers?," Working Papers hal-04940088, HAL.
    18. Hopp, Christian & Hoover, Gary A., 2017. "How prevalent is academic misconduct in management research?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 73-81.
    19. Michaël Bikard & Keyvan Vakili & Florenta Teodoridis, 2019. "When Collaboration Bridges Institutions: The Impact of University–Industry Collaboration on Academic Productivity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 426-445, March.
    20. Altug Yalcintas & Isil Sirin Selcuk, 2016. "Research Ethics Education in Economics," Review of Social Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 74(1), pages 53-74, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0159492. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.
    Лучший частный хостинг