Academic Publishing Navigator: November 2025

2025/12 | Retractions in Academic Publishing

2025/11 | The Hidden Cost of Unethical Research Practices

Frequently Asked Questions on Academic Retractions

Q1: What is a retraction and how is it different from an erratum or correction?

A **retraction** is a public notice that a published article should no longer be regarded as part of the scientific literature because its data or conclusions are deemed unreliable (due to serious error or misconduct).

An **erratum/correction** is used to fix minor errors (e.g., misspellings, slightly incorrect figures) that do not affect the main conclusions of the study.

Q2: What are the common reasons for retraction in academic publishing and how can they be prevented?

Common reasons include **data fabrication/falsification**, **plagiarism** (including duplicate publication), **fake peer review**, and **honest errors** (e.g., in data analysis or methodology). Prevention involves rigorous **data validation/audits**, using **plagiarism software**, implementing **strict institutional oversight**, and improving **pre-submission internal peer review**.

Q3: How do retracted articles impact the credibility of researchers and institutions?

Retractions severely damage the **credibility and reputation** of the authors, often leading to a **citation penalty** on their other works, loss of funding, and potential career consequences. Institutions also suffer reputational harm, as retractions cast doubt on the overall **quality and integrity** of their research programs.

Q4: What are the implications of retraction on the peer-review process and the overall quality of research?

A retraction signifies a **failure of the peer-review system** to catch flaws. This leads journals to adopt **stricter checks** (e.g., image and data screening) and encourages **post-publication review** by the broader scientific community. Ultimately, retractions are a necessary part of the **scientific self-correction mechanism**, maintaining the integrity of the research record.

Q5: Who is responsible for initiating the retraction process?

The retraction process can be initiated by **the authors themselves** (e.g., upon finding a significant error), **the journal editor/publisher** (following an investigation), or **the authors' institution** (following an internal investigation into research misconduct).

Q6: Does a retraction mean the findings were fake or fraudulent?

Not always. Retractions can be due to **honest error** (unintentional mistakes) or **misconduct** (intentional fraud like data fabrication). The retraction notice should specify the reason, often guided by guidelines from organizations like COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics).

Q7: Are papers based on retracted studies also retracted?

Usually not, but papers that heavily rely on a retracted study may receive a **"Notice of Concern"** or may need to be **corrected or amended**. If the entire basis of a follow-up paper is invalidated by the retraction, the journal may consider its own retraction.

Q8: What is a "partial" or "slicing" retraction?

A partial retraction occurs when only a **specific section, figure, or dataset** within a paper is found to be unreliable, while the rest of the study remains valid and the overall conclusions hold. This is less common than a full retraction.

Q9: How long does the retraction process typically take?

The process can take anywhere from a **few months to several years**. The timeline depends heavily on the complexity of the investigation, the cooperation of the authors and institutions, and the thoroughness required by the journal editor.

Q10: Are retracted papers removed entirely from the journal's website?

No. Standard practice is to **keep the paper online** but clearly mark it with a **"Retracted" watermark** across every page. The original paper is typically prefaced by an official **Retraction Notice** explaining the reason and date of the action.

Q11: What role does the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) play?

COPE provides **best practice guidelines and flowcharts** for journals and editors on how to handle cases of suspected misconduct, including when and how to issue a retraction. They advise on ensuring fairness and consistency across different publishers.

Q12: Can a retracted paper be re-published?

A paper retracted due to *honest error* might potentially be corrected, re-evaluated, and resubmitted, often as a **new manuscript** with transparent disclosure. A paper retracted due to *misconduct* is highly unlikely to ever be re-published.

Q13: What is "paper mill" activity and how does it relate to retractions?

A **"paper mill"** is a fraudulent entity that produces and sells fake scientific manuscripts, often using templated text and fabricated data/images, to authors who pay to have their names attached. These papers are a major driver of retractions, specifically for fraud and data manipulation.

Q14: How can I check if a paper I cited has been retracted?

The most reliable way is to check the article's page on the journal's website, which should display a **"Retracted" watermark or notice**. You can also use services like **Retraction Watch's database** or check major indexing services like **PubMed** or **Scopus**, which update their records with retraction statuses.

Q15: Does the retraction count as a 'negative mark' for the journal's impact factor?

Retractions do not directly reduce a journal's current Impact Factor (IF), which is based on citations received. However, high-profile retractions can severely damage the journal's reputation, potentially leading to fewer quality submissions and fewer future citations, which eventually impacts its standing and perceived value.

✅ Researcher's Pre-Submission Checklist

I. 📚 Content and Academic Integrity Checks

Status	Check Item	Details/Action Required
☐	Completeness of Draft	All sections outlined in the initial plan (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion) are present and fully written.
☐	Alignment with Scope	The work directly addresses the research question(s) or hypotheses initially agreed upon.
☐	Data Integrity & Verification	All reported data and statistics have been double-checked against the raw files. No transcription errors.
☐	Figure/Table Accuracy	All figures and tables are correctly labeled, captioned, and accurately reflect the reported results.
☐	Logical Flow & Argument	The argument builds logically from the Introduction to the Conclusion. Each paragraph contains a clear topic sentence.
☐	Conclusion Clarity	The conclusion summarizes the main findings and clearly states the novel contribution or implication of the work.
☐	Plagiarism Check	The draft has been run through a plagiarism/similarity checker (e.g., Turnitin, iThenticate). All matching text has been either properly quoted or sufficiently paraphrased and cited.
☐	Self-Plagiarism Check	Any reuse of your own previously published text or figures is minimal, necessary, and properly cited as self-citation.

II. 📑 Formatting and Style Checks

☐	Target Format Adherence	The document strictly follows the formatting guidelines of the target journal or the required institutional template (e.g., margins, font, line spacing).
☐	Citation Style Consistency	All in-text citations and the full reference list adhere to one consistent style (e.g., APA, IEEE, Vancouver).
☐	Reference List Accuracy	Every in-text citation has a corresponding entry in the reference list, and vice versa.
☐	Figures/Tables Placement	Figures and tables are placed appropriately and referenced clearly in the text.
☐	Page Numbers	All pages are numbered correctly.
☐	File Naming Convention	The file is named clearly and professionally (e.g., `AuthorName_Chapter3_v2.0.docx`).

III. 🧐 Language and Polish Checks

☐	Spell Check & Grammar	The document has been run through a robust spell checker and grammar tool (e.g., MS Word, Grammarly).
☐	Proofread for Typos	The document has been proofread manually (ideally after printing or reading aloud) to catch common typos, repeated words, and missing words that software often misses.
☐	Clarity and Conciseness	Eliminate excessive jargon, passive voice, and overly long or convoluted sentences. Focus on clarity.
☐	Terminology Consistency	Key technical terms, abbreviations, and variables are used consistently throughout the document.

IV. 📧 Submission and Contextual Checks

☐	Supervisor's Instructions	You have confirmed you addressed all specific feedback from the supervisor on the previous draft or outline.
☐	Specific Questions Provided	Prepare a brief email or separate document highlighting specific questions you want your supervisor to focus on (e.g., "I am concerned about the interpretation of the statistical interaction term—see page 15.").
☐	Required Attachments	Include any necessary supplementary materials, like raw data files or complex code snippets, if they are essential for the supervisor's review.

2025/10 | Navigating Ethical Issues in Student Writing: STEM Essays, Term Papers & Literature Reviews

2025/09 | How to craft an ethical publishing mission statement for journals

FAQ: Ethical Issues in Student Writing in STEM

1. What are the key ethical issues students face when writing STEM essays and term papers?

Plagiarism, improper citations, data fabrication or falsification, contract cheating, unauthorized collaboration, and misuse of AI tools are major issues. Unintentional mistakes from poor understanding of integrity policies also occur.

2. How can the integration of COPE resources enhance the teaching of ethical writing in STEM education?

COPE resources offer guidelines and case studies that help students and educators understand, identify, and address ethical issues, strengthening policies and ethical culture in STEM programs.

3. What strategies can students employ to avoid different forms of plagiarism in their academic writing?

Paraphrase in your own words, cite all sources, use plagiarism checkers, keep organized notes, understand citation rules, and never copy code or data without giving credit.

4. In what ways do case studies help students engage with ethical dilemmas in scientific research?

Case studies present real-life scenarios, allowing students to discuss challenges, reason through consequences, and practice ethical decision-making for research and writing.

5. What educational approaches can be implemented to address the rise of academic misconduct in the digital age?

Embed academic integrity modules in curricula, teach digital and AI literacy, use authentic assessments, organize peer-review activities, and provide clear guidelines and faculty training.

6. How can STEM faculty and institutions support a culture of ethical writing?

Model ethical behavior, update policies collaboratively, handle misconduct fairly, provide mentoring, and offer support resources for academic skills and well-being.

7. Why is ethical writing critical for students in STEM?

It builds trust, credibility, and skills essential for scientific progress, future research, professional conduct, and maintaining public confidence in science.

8. What is contract cheating, and why is it especially problematic in STEM?

Contract cheating means hiring someone else to complete assignments. In STEM, this can result in unqualified graduates, safety risks, and undermined scientific reliability.

9. How can students ethically use generative AI in their STEM writing?

Always disclose AI use, verify content for accuracy, avoid passing off AI-generated work as fully original, and make sure critical thinking and analysis reflect personal effort.

10. What are the consequences of fabricating or falsifying data in student assignments?

Consequences include academic penalties, loss of trust from faculty, impact on future research credibility, and setting a poor standard for scientific ethics.

11. How can students balance collaboration and individual responsibility on group projects?

Confirm expectations with instructors, credit all contributors, work together openly, and avoid submitting shared work for individual assessment unless explicitly allowed.

12. What supports can help students struggling with academic integrity issues?

Access writing centers, academic advisors, ethics modules, library workshops, and faculty office hours for guidance on referencing, research methods, and stress management.

13. How important is accurate citation in STEM literature reviews and essays?

Accurate citation credits original researchers, allows readers to verify information, prevents plagiarism, and builds the foundation of scientific dialogue.

14. What is "patchwriting" and why does it matter ethically?

Patchwriting is copying a source’s structure but making minor word changes. It is ethically problematic as it may conceal the original author’s contributions and often counts as plagiarism.

2025/08 | The Next Chapter in Ethical Publishing Has Arrived

2025/07 | Predatory Journals and Their Impact on Research Trustworthiness

2025/6 | Correcting the Record: Difference Between Errata, Corrections, and Retractions

How to Track Your Citation Impact: A Practical Guide for Modern Researchers

In today’s fast-paced academic world, research visibility matters as much as research quality. Whether you're an early-career scholar building your portfolio or a senior academic preparing for promotions, tracking your citation impact is essential. Citations signal how widely your work influences the scientific community—and increasingly, the world beyond it.

But with so many platforms and metrics, where do you begin? Here’s a clear and comprehensive guide to help you monitor your impact effectively and efficiently.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAu2Y4EkYyI

Why Citation Tracking Matters

Citations do more than decorate your CV. They are powerful indicators of:

Academic Influence

Citations reflect how your research contributes to ongoing scholarly conversations.

Career Growth & Recognition

Hiring committees, funding bodies, and award panels often review citation metrics when evaluating candidates.

Global Visibility

The more your work is cited, the more likely it is to be discovered by new audiences, collaborators, and institutions.

Start with Google Scholar: Your Research Mirror

Google Scholar remains one of the simplest and most widely used tools for tracking citations.

What It Offers

Automatic citation counts
Metrics like h-index and i10-index
A public profile that boosts visibility

Getting Started

Create or claim your profile using your Google account, verify your publications, and enable auto-updates. The platform will track citations as they occur—without any manual effort.

Use Researcher Identifiers for Accuracy

Authors often share similar names, leading to misattributed citations. That’s where persistent identifiers come in.

The Big Four

ORCID iD
ResearchGate Profile
Scopus Author ID
Web of Science ResearcherID

Syncing your publications with these platforms ensures consistent attribution and clearer citation tracking across databases.

Verify Through Publisher Databases

Academic publishers maintain robust citation databases, each with unique coverage.

Scopus and Web of Science

These platforms offer:

Comprehensive citation analytics
Cross-database comparisons
Insight into citation trends over time

Since each database indexes different journals, cross-verifying numbers helps ensure accuracy.

Stay Updated with Citation Alerts

Instead of manually checking your citations, let the platforms notify you.

Where to Set Alerts

Google Scholar
Scopus
Web of Science
ResearchGate

Alerts keep you informed when:

Your work is cited
New related papers emerge
Your field gains trending topics

This helps in maintaining an updated CV and identifying leads for new collaborations.

Look Beyond Citations: Altmetrics

Citations tell only part of the story. In the digital era, research also makes waves on social and public platforms.

Altmetrics Track:

Mentions on X (Twitter), Facebook, LinkedIn
Citations in Wikipedia
Policy document references
News features and blog posts
Engagement on research repositories

The colorful “Altmetric donut” summarizes your research’s online attention in a snapshot, offering a wider view of your impact beyond academia.

Use Institutional Support Wisely

Most universities offer access to premium databases and librarian expertise.

Your Library Can Help With:

Advanced citation analysis
Personalized impact reports
Training workshops
Database troubleshooting

Don’t hesitate to request assistance—libraries are often better equipped for complex citation analytics.

The Researcher’s Quick Checklist

To stay ahead, make sure you:

✔ Maintain your Google Scholar profile
✔ Register and update your ORCID
✔ Cross-check citations in Scopus and Web of Science
✔ Set up citation alerts
✔ Use Altmetrics for broader visibility
✔ Utilize institutional resources

The Bottom Line

Tracking your citation impact isn’t about chasing numbers—it’s about understanding your research’s reach. With the right tools and a little routine maintenance, you can stay informed, highlight your contributions confidently, and strategically shape your academic journey.

2025/05 | Are Traditional Journals Still Relevant in the Age of Open Science

2025/04 | Supporting Whistleblowers and Maintaining Integrity in Academic Publishing: Policies, Practices, and Tools

Publishing Initiatives

Funder Platforms:

Wellcome Open Research
Gates Open Research
F1000Research

Preprint Servers:

arXiv (physics, mathematics, computer science)
bioRxiv (biology)
medRxiv (medicine)
SSRN (social sciences)
PsyArXiv (psychology)

Repository Networks:

PubMed Central (biomedical research)
Europe PMC (European biomedical research)
Institutional repositories (university-based)

Open Infrastructure Initiatives:

Open Library of Humanities
SciELO (Latin America)
Redalyc (Latin America)
SCOAP3 (high-energy physics)

2025/03 | Uncovering the Unseen: The Art of Finding a Novel Research Topic

2025/02|The Paradox of Reuse: Why Even Copying Yourself Can Cross an Ethical Line

2025/01|Finding the Perfect Research Methodology

What Are Preprints?

Preprints are research manuscripts shared publicly before formal peer review. In biology, they have transformed how discoveries are communicated, accelerating the exchange of ideas and enabling open scientific discussion long before traditional publication.

1. Accelerating the Pace of Discovery

Biological research moves quickly—especially in fields like infectious disease, genomics, and ecology. Preprints allow scientists to share findings immediately, without waiting months for peer review and journal publication.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, bioRxiv and medRxiv became vital channels for timely dissemination of results.
This speed helps researchers receive early feedback and avoid duplication of work.

However, because preprints are not peer reviewed, they should be interpreted cautiously, particularly for clinical or policy-sensitive topics.

2. Enhancing Visibility and Impact

Posting a preprint can increase a paper’s reach and influence:

Studies show that preprinted papers often receive more citations and online attention after journal publication.
Preprints provide open access visibility, even when the final version is published behind a paywall.
For early-career researchers, preprints help demonstrate productivity and impact between formal publications.

3. Establishing Priority and Transparency

Preprints create a timestamped, citable record of research, helping scientists establish precedence for their discoveries.
This transparency also supports reproducibility, as data and methods are shared openly from the start.

4. Evolving Relationship with Journals

Most major biology journals now accept submissions that began as preprints, and some actively encourage it.

Publishers such as PLOS, eLife, and EMBO Press support preprint posting.
Platforms like eLife and Peer Community In integrate open peer review directly on preprints, blending early sharing with formal evaluation.

5. Challenges and Considerations

While preprints offer many benefits, they also raise important questions.

Challenge	Implication	Best Practice
Misinformation risk	Unreviewed findings can spread widely	Include clear disclaimers; communicate responsibly
Duplicate publication concerns	Some fear preprints may count as “prior publication”	Check journal policies on preprints (via Sherpa Romeo)
Unequal participation	Some researchers may hesitate to post work publicly	Promote mentoring and equitable support for open science

6. Key Preprint Servers for Biology

Platform	Focus	Notes
bioRxiv	General biology	Established, hosted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
medRxiv	Health and clinical sciences	Ethical screening process
EcoEvoRxiv	Ecology and evolution	Community-led via the Open Science Framework
Research Square	Broad scientific scope	DOI assignment and optional editorial checks

7. Strategic Use of Preprints

For biologists, preprints can:

Gather community feedback before journal submission
Increase research visibility and accessibility
Demonstrate progress for funding or hiring
Contribute to open and collaborative science

Many major funders, including the NIH, Wellcome Trust, and HHMI, now allow or even encourage citing preprints in grant applications.

The Future of Publishing in Biology

Preprints are helping biology move toward a more open, transparent, and collaborative model of publishing.
Rather than replacing journals, they complement the peer review system—bridging the gap between discovery and dissemination.

Recommended resources:

Plagiarism and Self-Plagiarism: Avoiding Common Pitfalls

Plagiarism remains the most frequently encountered issue in academic publishing, and it is a grave violation of research ethics. Fundamentally, it is the act of using another person's work, ideas, or words without proper attribution. However, researchers must also be vigilant about self-plagiarism.

Defining Plagiarism

Plagiarism occurs when a text, image, data, or idea is presented as one's own original work when it originated elsewhere. Even minor borrowing without citation constitutes plagiarism.

The core principle is: If it is not common knowledge, and it is not your original idea or data, you must cite the source.

Understanding Self-Plagiarism (Text Recycling)

Self-plagiarism, or "text recycling," refers to reusing large segments of text, data, or analysis from your own previously published work without explicit citation and, often, without permission from the original publisher (who may own the copyright).

While reusing your own methods section might seem innocuous, journal editors view it as unethical for several reasons:

Inflation of Publication Record: It creates the illusion of more new research than actually exists.
Copyright Violation: If the copyright of the previous work was transferred to the journal, reusing the text without permission is technically a copyright breach.
Redundancy: It consumes space that could be used for new information.

How to Avoid Self-Plagiarism:

Cite Yourself: If you must rephrase a previous finding or refer to a prior methodology, cite the original publication.
Use Quotes Sparingly: If quoting your own work, keep the quotation brief and cite it correctly.
Gain Permission: If reusing large sections (e.g., figures or tables) that were copyrighted by a previous publisher, you must obtain formal permission.
Write Fresh: The best practice is always to write new material for the current publication.

Tools for Integrity

Most major journals use software like Turnitin or iThenticate to screen manuscripts. If a manuscript shows a high percentage of similarity (typically above 15–20% depending on the institution/journal), it will be flagged for rejection and investigation. Always check your own manuscript before submission.

Welcome to Academic Publishing Navigator