摘要：

【目的】 分析知网、万方、维普数据库零星撤销论文和规模撤销论文处理失范表现,针对问题提出建议,以期为规范数据库撤销论文流程提供参考。【方法】 调查知网、万方、维普3个数据库零星撤稿的370篇撤稿声明对应的404篇撤销论文和规模撤稿的撤销论文处理失范表现,统计每个数据库应该发布而尚未发布撤稿声明的论文、发布撤稿声明后直接删除的论文、发布撤稿声明后未规范处理的论文、未发布撤稿声明直接删除的论文、未发布撤稿声明直接标注撤稿标志的论文、未做任何处理而被其他数据库撤销的论文的数量。【结果】 知网、万方、维普数据库中,应该发布而尚未发布撤稿声明的论文分别有282、205、135篇,发布撤稿声明后直接删除的论文分别有58、97、213篇,发布撤稿声明后未规范处理的论文分别有104、189、265篇,未发布撤稿声明直接删除的论文分别有119、96、77篇,未发布撤稿声明直接标注撤稿标志的论文分别有72、0、0篇,未做任何处理而被其他数据库撤销的论文分别有91、109、58篇。【结论】 相关部门要制定撤稿规范文件、加强数据库撤稿监管,数据库要提升撤稿规范意识、建立健全撤稿制度,进而加强学术不端治理、促进科研诚信建设。

关键词: 中文期刊数据库, 撤稿声明, 撤销论文处理, 失范表现

Abstract:

[Purposes] This paper analyzes the misconduct performances of processing sporadic and large-scale retracted papers in CNKI, Wanfang, and Weipu databases and gives some suggestions to solve the problems, so as to provide references for standardizing the processing of retracted papers in databases. [Methods] By investigating the misconduct performances of processing 404 sporadic retracted papers corresponding to 370 retraction statements and large-scale retracted papers in the databases of CNKI, Wanfang, and Weipu, the number of six types of papers is counted in each database, including papers whose retraction statements should have been published but have not yet, papers that are deleted directly after retraction statements are published, papers without standardized processing after retraction statements are published, papers that are directly deleted without publishing retraction statements, papers that are directly marked with retraction without publishing retraction statements, and retracted papers in other databases without any processing in the databases. [Findings] In CNKI, Wanfang, and Weipu databases, the number of retracted papers whose retraction statements should have been published but have not yet respectively is 282, 205, and 135; the number of papers that are deleted directly after retraction statements are published respectively is 58, 97, and 213; the number of papers without standardized processing after retraction statements are published respectively is 104, 189, and 265; the number of papers that are directly deleted without publishing retraction statements respectively is 119, 96, and 77; the number of papers that are directly marked with retraction without publishing retraction statements respectively is 72, 0, and 0; the number of retracted papers in other databases without any processing in the databases respectively is 91, 109, and 58. [Conclusions] The relevant departments should formulate retraction standardization documents and strengthen retraction paper supervision of databases, and the databases should enhance the awareness of retraction standardization and establish and perfect the retraction system, so as to strengthen the governance of academic misconduct and promote the construction of scientific research integrity.

Key words: Chinese journal database, Retraction statement, Retracted paper processing, Misconduct performance