Willem Halffman – InfoDoc MicroVeille

Authors : Wytske M. Hepkema, Frédérique Bordignon, Willem Halffman

Formal corrections of research publications should be clearly communicated to users of the scholarly literature, especially when these corrections have consequences for reported knowledge.

However, the information that a publication was corrected is not always shared and indicated clearly. To test correction communication, we formed a corpus of publications with corrections most likely consequential to their reported knowledge.

To this end, we selected 3177 publications that were recently corrected according to Crossref and that received at least two comments on PubPeer. We used this corpus as a probe to assess correction communication on a range of scholarly platforms.

The majority of these platforms does not indicate the presence of corrections together with the entry for these publications: Web of Science, OpenAlex, Dimensions, Google Scholar, Lens, Mendeley, Zotero, Endnote and Elicit.

Those that do indicate the existence of corrections, do so for nearly all corrected publications as follows: Scopus 90.8%, PubMed 98.7%, EuropePMC 98.8%, Scite.ai 99.7% and the journal’s webpage 94.4%. Even when the presence of a correction is communicated, this is not always indicated clearly.

Readers of the scholarly literature might miss corrections when they are communicated under a generic header such as ‘referred to by’, or only indicated by a small line of text in the same colours as the rest of the page.

We provide suggestions for improved communication of corrections through better integration of information across platforms, improved labelling on platforms and the development of correction communication standards.

URL : The Limited Communication of Corrections to Users of Scholarly Platforms

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2103

Authors : Serge P. J. M. Horbach, Eric Breit, Willem Halffman, Svenn-Erik Mamelund

While attention to research integrity has been growing over the past decades, the processes of signalling and denouncing cases of research misconduct remain largely unstudied.

In this article, we develop a theoretically and empirically informed understanding of the causes and consequences of reporting research misconduct in terms of power relations.

We study the reporting process based on a multinational survey at eight European universities (N = 1126). Using qualitative data that witnesses of research misconduct or of questionable research practices provided, we aim to examine actors’ rationales for reporting and not reporting misconduct, how they report it and the perceived consequences of reporting.

In particular we study how research seniority, the temporality of work appointments, and gender could impact the likelihood of cases being reported and of reporting leading to constructive organisational changes.

Our findings suggest that these aspects of power relations play a role in the reporting of research misconduct. Our analysis contributes to a better understanding of research misconduct in an academic context.

Specifically, we elucidate the processes that affect researchers’ ability and willingness to report research misconduct, and the likelihood of universities taking action.

Based on our findings, we outline specific propositions that future research can test as well as provide recommendations for policy improvement.

URL : On the Willingness to Report and the Consequences of Reporting Research Misconduct: The Role of Power Relations

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00202-8