Academic misconduct, fake authorship letters, cyber fraud: Evidence from the <i>International Political Science Review</i>

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Key points

This article highlights two types of publishing fraud: fake acceptance letter and financial fraud.
Prepared by a third party, fake acceptance letters affirm that a paper, which we had never received before, has been accepted by IPSR.
In the financial fraud case, a third party pretends to be an editor of IPSR, sends out authentic looking fake acceptance letters and then solicits authors to pay an article processing fee (APC).

Related collections

Most cited references 20

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data

Daniele Fanelli (2009)

The frequency with which scientists fabricate and falsify data, or commit other forms of scientific misconduct is a matter of controversy. Many surveys have asked scientists directly whether they have committed or know of a colleague who committed research misconduct, but their results appeared difficult to compare and synthesize. This is the first meta-analysis of these surveys. To standardize outcomes, the number of respondents who recalled at least one incident of misconduct was calculated for each question, and the analysis was limited to behaviours that distort scientific knowledge: fabrication, falsification, “cooking” of data, etc… Survey questions on plagiarism and other forms of professional misconduct were excluded. The final sample consisted of 21 surveys that were included in the systematic review, and 18 in the meta-analysis. A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words “falsification” or “fabrication”, and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct. When these factors were controlled for, misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others. Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.

0 comments Cited 250 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

ChatGPT and a new academic reality: Artificial Intelligence‐written research papers and the ethics of the large language models in scholarly publishing

Brady D. Lund, Ting Wang, Nishith Reddy Mannuru … (2023)

0 comments Cited 101 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

What I learned from predatory publishers

Jeffrey Beall (2017)

This article is a first-hand account of the author’s work identifying and listing predatory publishers from 2012 to 2017. Predatory publishers use the gold (author pays) open access model and aim to generate as much revenue as possible, often foregoing a proper peer review. The paper details how predatory publishers came to exist and shows how they were largely enabled and condoned by the open-access social movement, the scholarly publishing industry, and academic librarians. The author describes tactics predatory publishers used to attempt to be removed from his lists, details the damage predatory journals cause to science, and comments on the future of scholarly publishing.

0 comments Cited 77 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Daniel Stockemer: (View ORCID Profile)

Journal

Title: Learned Publishing

Abbreviated Title: Learned Publishing

Publisher: Wiley

ISSN (Print): 0953-1513

ISSN (Electronic): 1741-4857

Publication date Created: January 2024

Publication date (Electronic): December 20 2023

Publication date (Print): January 2024

Volume: 37

Issue: 1

Pages: 39-43

Affiliations

[1 ] School of Political Studies University of Ottawa Ottawa Ontario Canada

[2 ] Department of Government and Politics University College Cork Cork Ireland

Article

DOI: 10.1002/leap.1587

SO-VID: 743d54e3-8685-4400-bd1e-dab37fcc8215

License:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

History

Data availability:

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Smart Citations

Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting

View Citations

See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

Most referenced authors 55

See all reference authors