摘要：

【目的】分析全球同行评议造假论文趋势，研究我国撤销论文的新动向，为科研诚信建设提供参考。【方法】 集成Retraction Watch数据库、Web of Science数据库及国际科技期刊监测预警数据，从增长趋势、学科领域、国别分布、撤销原因等维度分析全球同行评议造假论文，并从预警期刊、开放获取、作者机构及基金资助等方面研究中国同行评议造假论文的特征。【结果】 在全球范围内，同行评议造假论文呈现明显不均匀分布态势。同行评议造假论文的主要伴随撤销原因包括不可再现、被出版商等调查及造假。中国的同行评议造假论文问题突出，总量约占全球的3/4，远高于其他国家,并呈现出明显的预警期刊集中趋势、掠夺性开放获取倾向和基层医院为主的分布特点。【结论】 同行评议造假正成为我国科研诚信治理中突出的新问题。大规模撤销事件反映出学术出版流程的系统性漏洞，其中期刊出版商管理不善的因素可能更大。应对同行评议造假论文，管理部门、期刊出版商和研究人员等多方需要协同治理，并从基础设施、机制流程、科学家精神、学术期刊预警制度、科研诚信档案等方面同向发力，构建主动监测的科研诚信管理体系。

Abstract:

[Purposes] This study aims to analyze the global trends of retracted papers with fake peer reviews and explore the new trends of retracted papers in China, offering references for the construction of scientific research integrity. [Methods] By integrating the Retraction Watch database, Web of Science database, and international scientific journal monitoring and early warning data, we analyzed retracted papers with fake peer reviews in terms of growth trends, disciplinary fields, country distribution, and reasons for retraction. We also examined the characteristics of Chinese retracted papers regarding early warning journals, open access, author institutions, and fund sponsorship. [Findings] Globally, retracted papers with fake peer reviews display a significantly uneven distribution. The main accompanying reasons for retraction include non-reproducibility, being investigated by publishers, and fraud. The problem of retracted papers with fake peer reviews in China is prominent. The quantity approximately accounts for three-fourths of the global total, which is far higher than that of other countries. Moreover, it exhibits a clear trend of concentration in early warning journals, a tendency of predatory open access, and a distribution feature with primary hospitals being the main source. [Conclusions] Fake peer review is turning into a prominent new issue in the governance of scientific research integrity in China. Large-scale retraction events reflect systemic loopholes in the academic publishing process. Among them, the factor of poor management by journal publishers may be more prominent. Addressing retracted papers with fake peer reviews demands coordinated governance by administrative departments, journal publishers, and researchers. Also, joint efforts should be made in aspects such as infrastructure, mechanism and process, the spirit of scientists, the early warning system of academic journals, and scientific research integrity archives, so as to build a scientific research integrity management system with active monitoring.

中图分类号: 

• 学术不端

• 科研诚信

• 同行评议造假

• 科技期刊

• Research misconduct

• Research integrity

• Fake peer review

• Scientific journal