摘要：

【目的】 了解我国学术期刊网络首发论文出版后的撤稿及更正状况,以及问题论文撤回过程中《中国知网网络出版文献出版状态变更与内容更正规范》(以下简称《规范》)的执行情况。 【方法】 首先,检索CNKI平台2017—2019年带有“撤回”标记的网络首发论文的撤回声明;其次,下载撤回声明并编码保存,将撤回论文的目录导出至参考文献管理软件Endnote X9进行相关统计,将撤稿声明的文本导入到质性研究数据分析软件NVivo 12 Plus进行原因分类;最后,对网络首发撤稿论文的学科分布、来源期刊、撤回原因等进行分析。 【结果】 2017—2019年CNKI共撤回网络首发论文389篇,其中“撤回”论文310篇,“撤稿”论文74篇,“勘误”论文5篇;有明确撤回原因的论文有278篇,占比为71.47%,111篇没有说明撤回原因,占比为28.53%;因学术不端、署名问题、出版管理、质量控制、其他等原因撤回的论文分别为32、25、82、118、21篇。 【结论】 网络首发论文撤回率偏高(389/182654,0.21%),《规范》执行率偏低(6/389,1.54%);撤稿原因不明确、不具体,且存在故意遮掩学术不端事实的现象。学术期刊编辑出版单位和数字化出版平台应进一步规范网络首发论文的流程管理和内容审核,增强撤回原因的透明性、撤回声明的易见性和撤回过程的可回溯性。

关键词: 网络首发, 撤回声明, 撤稿, 学术诚信, 数字出版

Abstract:

[Purposes] This study aims to investigate the publication status alternation of papers online first and reveal how the Regulations for Alteration of Publication Status and Content Correction of Online Publications on CNKI (Regulations for short) is implemented. [Methods] Firstly, we retrieved the withdrawal declarations of papers online first marked with "withdrawal" on CNKI from 2017 to 2019. Secondly, we downloaded them and saved the documents after coding. Then, the file directories were imported into Endnote X9 (a kind of reference management software) for statistical analysis and the texts of declarations were input into NVivo 12 Plus (a type of qualitative data analysis software) for cause classification. Finally, we analyzed the subject distribution, source journals, and causes of the "withdrawal". [Findings] From 2017 to 2019, the publication statuses of 389 articles online first have been altered, with 310 withdrawn, 74 retracted, and 5 corrected. Among them, only 278 (71.47%) state specific causes in the withdrawal statements and the causes are academic misconduct (32), authorship (25), publishing errors (82), quality problems (118), and others (21). [Conclusions] The online-first articles have a high proportion (389/182654, 0.21%) of publication status alternation and a small percentage of them (6/389, 1.54%) have strictly complied with the requirements of the Regulations, as manifested by the missing or vague causes for the publication status alternation in the withdrawal statements and even the deliberately covered-up academic misconducts. Academic journal publishers and digital publishing platforms should enhance the process management and content review of papers published online first and further improve the transparency of the causes of publication status alternation, visibility of withdrawal declarations, and traceability of the "withdrawal" process.

Key words: Online-first publishing, Withdrawal declaration, Retraction, Academic integrity, Digital publishing