Fronteras en la corrección de la memoria científica: Fronteras en la corrección de la memoria científica
Palabras clave:
Ciência da Informação, Integridade em pesquisa, América Latina, Memória científica, Comunicação científicaSinopsis
This book analyzes the frontiers in the correction of scientific memory through the study of retracted articles in Latin America. By taking retractions as its object of investigation, the work examines how science records, corrects, and preserves the traces of its own errors, inconsistencies, and deviations. More than isolated episodes, retractions are understood as signs of tensions present in scientific communication, research integrity, and the mechanisms of science governance. Drawing on empirical evidence about retracted articles, the book discusses aspects such as the reasons for retraction, the time between publication and retraction, the role of journals and publishers, patterns of authorship and collaboration, as well as the continued presence of these articles in scientific circulation through subsequent citations. The work contributes to broadening the debate on scientific integrity in contexts still little explored in the international literature, highlighting regional specificities without losing sight of the global challenges involved in correcting the literature. Intended for researchers, students, information professionals, scientific editors, and science managers, the book offers a critical reflection on the limits, responsibilities, and possibilities of science in the face of the need to publicly correct the knowledge it produces. It is, therefore, a contribution to studies on scientific communication, science evaluation, research integrity, and scientific memory.
Citas
ALGAN, Y.; COHEN, D.; DAVOINE, E.; FOUCAULT, M.; STANTCHEVA, S. Trust in scientists in times of pandemic: Panel evidence from 12 countries. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, Washington, v. 118, n. 40, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2108576118
ALMEIDA, R. M. V. R.; ROCHA, K. A.; CATELANI, F.; FONTES-PEREIRA, J. F.; VASCONCELOS, S. M. Plagiarism Allegations Account for Most Retractions in Major Latin American/Caribbean Databases. Sci Eng Ethics, England, v. 22, p. 1447–1456, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9714-5
ALTMETRIC. How is the Altmetric Attention Score calculated? Help.Altmetric.com, [S.l.], Tuesday 21 Sep. 2021. Disponível em: https://help.altmetric.com/support/solutions/articles/6000233311-how-is-the-altmetric-attention-score-calculated- Acesso em: 10 dez. 2022.
ANDERSON, M. S.; SHAW, M. A.; STENECK, N. H.; KONKLE, E.; KAMATA, T. Research Integrity and Misconduct in the Academic Profession. In: PAULSEN, M. (eds). Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research (vol. 28). Dordrecht: Springer, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5836-0_5
ARAUJO, R. F. Estudos métricos da informação na web: atores, ações e dispositivos informacionais. Maceió: Edufal, 2015.
ARMOND, A. C. V.; GORDIJN, B.; LEWIS, J.; HOSSEINI, M.; BODNÁR, J. K.; HOLM, S.; KAKUK, P. A scoping review of the literature featuring research ethics and research integrity cases. BMC Med Ethics, London, v. 22, n. 50, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00620-8
AVENELL, A.; BOLLAND, M. J.; GAMBLE, G. D.; GREY, A. A randomized trial alerting authors, with or without coauthors or editors, that research they cited in systematic reviews and guidelines has been retracted. Account Res, New York, v. 31, n. 1, p. 14–37, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2082290
AXFORS, C.; SCHMITT, A. M.; JANIAUD, P. et al. Mortality outcomes with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in COVID-19 from an international collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials. Nat Commun, England, v. 12, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22446-z
AZOULAY, P.; BONATTI, A.; KRIEGER, J. L. The career effects of scandal: Evidence from scientific retractions. Res. Policy, Amsterdam, v. 46, n. 9, p. 1552–1569, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.07.003
BAR-ILAN, J.; HALEVI, G. Post retraction citations in context: a case study. Scientometrics, Amsterdam, v. 113, p. 547–565, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2242-0
BAR-ILAN, J.; HALEVI, G. Retracted articles – the scientific version of fake news. In: GREIFENEDER, R. et al. (ed.). The Psychology of Fake News: accepting, sharing, and correcting misinformation. Basel: Routledge, 2020. p. 47–70. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429295379
BANKS, G. C.; ROGELBERG, S.G.; WOZNYJ, H. M.; LANDIS, R. S.; RUPP, D. E. Editorial: Evidence on Questionable Research Practices: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. J Bus Psychol, New York, v. 31, p. 323–338, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9456-7
BAUTISTA-PUIG, N.; SANZ-CASADO, E. Sustainability practices in Spanish higher education institutions: An overview of status and implementation. J Clean Prod, Oxford, v. 295, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126320
BABBAGE, C. Reflections on the Decline of Science in England, and on some of its Causes. London: B. Fellowes, 1830.
BANERJEE, T.; PARTIN, K.; RESNIK, D. B. Authorship Issues when articles are retracted due to research misconduct and then resubmitted. Sci Eng Ethics, England, v. 28, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-022-00386-1
BECK, T. S. Image manipulation in scholarly publications: Are there ways to an automated solution? J. Doc., London, v. 78, n. 5, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-06-2021-0113
BENNETT, C. et al. Retracted articles in the obstetrics literature: lessons from the past to change the future. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM, New York, v. 2, n. 4, p. 100201, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajogmf.2020.100201
BIK, E. M.; CASADEVALL, A.; FANG, F. C. The prevalence of inappropriate image duplication in biomedical research publications. mBio, Washington, v. 7, n. 3, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00809-16
BOLAÑO, C. R. S; KOBASHI, N.; SANTOS, R. N. M. A lógica econômica da edição científica certificada. Encontros Bibli, Florianópolis, v. 11, n. 1, p. 119–131, 2006. https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2006v11nesp1p119
BONETTA, L. The Aftermath of Scientific Fraud. Cell, Cambridge, v. 124, n. 5, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2006.02.032
BORNMANN, L.; DANIEL, H-D. What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. J. Doc., London, v. 64, n. 1, p. 45–79, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410810844150
BORNEMANN-CIMENTI, H., SZILAGYI, I. S., SANDNER-KIESLING, A. Perpetuation of retracted publications using the example of the Scott S. Reuben case: Incidences, Reasons and Possible Improvements. Sci Eng Ethics, England, v. 22, n. 4, p. 1063–1072, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9680-y
BOURDIEU, P. Le champ scientifique. Actes Rech Sci Soc, Paris, n. 2/3, p. 88–104, 1976.
BOURDIEU, P. Pierre Bourdieu: Sociologia. In: ORTIZ, Renato (org.). Tradução: Paula Montero e Alícia Auzmendi. São Paulo: Ática, 1983.
BOURDIEU, P. Razões práticas: sobre a teoria da ação. 8. ed. Tradução: Mariza Corrêa. Campinas: Papirus, 2008.
BOUTER, L. What Research Institutions can do to foster Research Integrity. Sci Eng Ethics, England, v. 26, p. 2363–2369, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00178-5
BOXHEIMER, E. W.; PULVERER, B. Self-correction prevents withdrawal syndrome. EMBO J, Oxford, v. 38, n. 18, 2019. https://doi.org/10.15252/embj.201970001
BOYACK, K. W; van, ECK, N. J.; COLAVIZZA, G.; WALTMAN, L. Characterizing in-text citations in scientific articles: A large-scale analysis. J. Informetr, Amsterdam, v. 12, n. 1, p. 59–73, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.11.005
BRADSHAW, A. S. #DoctorsSpeakUp: Exploration of Hashtag Hijacking by Anti-Vaccine Advocates and the Influence of Scientific Counterpublics on Twitter. Health Commun, London, v. 38, n. 10, p. 2167–2177, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2022.2058159
BRAGA, G. M. Informação, Ciência, política Científica: o pensamento de Derek de Solla Price. Ci.Inf., Brasília, v. 3, n. 2, 1974. Disponível em: https://revista.ibict.br/ciinf/article/view/50. Acesso em: 05 jun. 2022.
BRAINARD, J.; YOU, J. What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about science publishing’s ‘death penalty.’ Science, New York, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav8384
BRAXTON, J. M. Deviancy from the norms of science: The effects of anomie and alienation in the academic profession. Res High Educ, New York, v. 34, p. 213–228, 1993. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992162
BRAINARD, J.; YOU, J. What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about science publishing’s ‘death penalty.’ Science, New York, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav8384
BUCCI, E. M. On zombie papers. Cell Death Dis, London, v. 10, p. 1–2, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41419-019-1450-3
BUDD, J. M.; SIEVERT, M., SCHULTZ, T. R. Phenomena of retraction: reasons for retraction and citations to the publications. J Am Med Assoc, Chicago, v. 280, n. 3, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.296
BUFREM, L. S. Complementaridade qualitativo-quantitativa na pesquisa em informação. TransInformação, Campinas, v. 13, n. 1, p. 49–55, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-37862001000100004
CAGNEY, H.; HORTON, R.; JAMES, A. et al. Retraction and republication—a new tool for correcting the scientific record? Eur. Sci. Ed. [S. l.], v. 42, n. 1, 2016. Disponível em: https://europeanscienceediting.org.uk/articles/retraction-and-republication-a-new-tool-for-correcting-the-scientific-record/ Acesso em: 3 fev. 2023.
CANDAL-PEDREIRA, C.; RUANO-RAVINA, A.; REY-BRANDARIZ, J.; MOURINO, N.; RAVARA, S.; AGUIAR, P.; PEREZ RIOS, M. Evolution and characterization of health sciences paper retractions in Brazil and Portugal. Accountability in Research, New York, v. 30, n. 8, p. 725–742, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022. 2080549
CAMPOS-VARELA, I.; RUANO-RAVIÑA A. Misconduct as the main cause for retraction. A descriptive study of retracted publications and their authors. Gaceta Sanitaria, Barcelona, v. 33. n. 4, p. 356–360, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2018.01.009
CASADEVALL, A.; STEEN, R. G.; FANG, F.C. Sources of error in the retracted scientific literature. FASEB J, Hoboken, v. 28, p. 3847–3855, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.14-256735
CASTIEL, L. D.; SANZ-VALERO, J. Entre fetichismo e sobrevivência: o artigo científico é uma mercadoria acadêmica? Cad. saúde pública., Rio de Janeiro, 2007, v. 23, n. 12, p. 3041–3050.
COKOL, M.; OZBAY, F.; RODRIGUEZ-ESTEBAN, R. Retraction rates are on the rise. EMBO Rep, London, v. 9, n. 1, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7401143
CONROY, G. Surge in number of ‘extremely productive’ authors concerns scientists. Nature, London, n. 625, p. 14–15, 2023.https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03865-y
COPE Council. Retraction guidelines. – English. Committee on Publication Ethics, 02/11/2019. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4 Acesso em: 23 dez. 2022.
COUDERT, F. X. Correcting the Scientific Record: Retraction Practices in Chemistry and Materials Science. Chem Mater, Washington, v. 31, n. 10, p. 3593–3598, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemmater.9b00897
COUZIN, J.; UNGER, K. Scientific misconduct. Cleaning up the paper trail. Science, New York, v. 312, p. 38–43, 2006. https://doi.org/ 10.1126/science.312.5770.38
CYRANOSKI, D. Stem-cell pioneer blamed media 'bashing' in suicide note. Nature, London, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2014.15715
DAL-RÉ, R.; AYUSO, C. Reasons for and time to retraction of genetics articles published between 1970 and 2018. J Med Genet, London, v. 56, p. 734-740, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1136/jmedgenet-2019-106137
DAVEY, M. Retracted studies may have damaged public trust in science, top researchers fear. The Guardian, London, Friday 05 Jun. 2020. Disponível em: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/jun/06/retracted-studies-may-have-damaged-public-trust-in-science-top-researchers-fear Acesso em: 23 jan. 2023.
DAVIS, P. M. The persistence of error: A study of retracted articles on the Internet and in personal libraries. J Med Libr Assoc, Chicago, v. 100, n. 3, p. 184–189, 2012. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.100.3.008
DAY, A. Exploratory analysis of text duplication in peer‐review reveals peer‐review fraud and paper mills. Scientometrics, Amsterdam, v. 127, n. 10, p. 5965–5987, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04504-5
DEBACKERE, K.; GLÄNZEL, W.; THIJS, B. Scientometrics shaping science policy and vice versa, the ECOOM case. In: GLÄNZEL, W.; MOED, H. F.; SCHMOCH, U.; THELWALL, M. (Eds.). Springer Handbook of Science and Technology indicators. Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland AG, 2019. p. 447–463.
DOBRÁNSZKI, J.; TEIXEIRA DA SILVA, J. A. Corrective factors for author- and journal-based metrics impacted by citations to accommodate for retractions. Scientometrics, Amsterdam, v. 121, p. 387–398, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03190-0
ELANGO, B.; KOZAK, M.; RAJENDRAN, P. Analysis of retractions in Indian science. Scientometrics, Amsterdam, v. 119, p. 1081–1094, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03079-y
ELIA, N.; WAGER, E.; TRAMÈR, M. R. Fate of articles that warranted retraction due to ethical concerns: a descriptive cross-sectional study. PLOS ONE, San Francisco, v. 9, n. 1, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0085846
ELLIOTT, K. Values in Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022.
FABER, F. T.; ERIKSEN, M. B.; HAMMER, D. M. G. Obsolescence of the literature: A study of included studies in Cochrane reviews. J Inf Sci, Amsterdam, v. 49, n. 2 p. 437–447, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515211006588
FANELLI, D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and Meta-Analysis of survey data. PLOS ONE, San Francisco, v. 4, n. 5, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738
FANELLI, D. Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign. PLOS Med, San Francisco, v. 10:e1001563, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001563
FANELLI D.; WONG, J.; MOHER, D. What difference might retractions make? An estimate of the potential epistemic cost of retractions on meta-analyses. Account Res, New York, v. 29, n. 7, p. 442–459, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2021.1947810
FANG, F. C.; STEEN, R. G.; CASADEVALL, A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, Washington, v. 109, n. 42, p. 17028–17033, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212247109
FENG, L.; YUAN, J.; YANG, L. An observation framework for retracted publications in multiple dimensions. Scientometrics, Amsterdam, v. 125, p. 1445–1457, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03702-3
FEYERABEND, P. Against Method. London: Verso, 1975.
FIEDLER, K.; SCHWARZ, N. Questionable Research Practices Revisited. Soc Psychol Personal Sci, Thousand Oaks, v. 7, n. 1, p. 45–52, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615612150
FINARDI, U. Correlation between Journal Impact Factor and citation performance: An experimental study. J. Informetr, Amsterdam, v. 7, n. 2, p. 357–370, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.12.004
FRAMPTON, G.; WOODS, L.; SCOTT, D. A. Inconsistent and incomplete retraction of published research: A cross-sectional study on Covid-19 retractions and recommendations to mitigate risks for research, policy and practice. PLOS ONE, San Francisco, v. 16, n. 10, e0258935, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258935
GARFIELD, E. What do we know about fraud and other forms of intellectual dishonesty in science? Part 2, Why does fraud happen and what are its effects? Curr Contents Clin Med, v. 15, n. 15, p. 3–10, 1987.
GAUFFRIAU, M. Counting methods introduced into the bibliometric research literature 1970–2018: A review. Quant Sci Stud, Cambridge, v. 2, n. 3, p. 932– 975, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00141
GINOSSAR, T.; CRUICKSHANK, I. J.; ZHELEVA, E.; SULSKIS, J.; BERGER-WOLF, T. Cross-platform spread: vaccine-related content, sources, and conspiracy theories in YouTube videos shared in early Twitter COVID-19 conversations. Hum Vaccin Immunother, Philadelphia, v. 18, n. 1, p. 1–13, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2021.2003647
GLÄSER, J. The social orders of Research Evaluation Systems. In: WHITLEY, R., GLÄSER, J. (ed). The Changing Governance of the Sciences. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, v. 26. Dordrecht: Springer, 2007. p. 245–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6746-4_12
GLÄNZEL, W.; SCHOEPFLIN, U. Little scientometrics, big scientometrics… And beyond? Scientometrics, Amsterdam, v. 30, n. 2–3, p. 375–384, 1994. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02018107
GOODSTEIN, D. Scientific Misconduct. Academe, Washington, v. 88, n. 1, 2002.
GOLDENBERG, S. Aspectos éticos da pesquisa com animais. Acta cir. bras., São Paulo, v. 15, n. 4, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-86502000000400001
GOUVEIA, F. C. Altmetria: métricas de produção científica para além das citações. Liinc em revista, Rio de Janeiro, v. 9, n. 1, 2013. https://doi.org/110.18617/liinc.v9i1.569
GOPALAKRISHNA, G; TER RIET, G.; VINK, G.; STOOP, I.; WICHERTS, J. M.; BOUTER, L. M. Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands. PLOS ONE, San Francisco, v. 17, n. 2, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263023
GRIENEISEN, M. L.; ZHANG, M. A Comprehensive Survey of Retracted Articles from the Scholarly Literature. PLOS ONE, San Francisco, v. 7, n. 10, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0044118
HACKETT, E. J. A Social Control Perspective on Scientific Misconduct. J Higher Educ, Philadelphia, v. 65, n. 3, p. 242–260, 1994. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1994.11778499
HARTMANN, M.; MÜLLER, P. Acceptance and adherence to COVID-19 preventive measures are shaped predominantly by conspiracy beliefs, mistrust in science and fear – A comparison of more than 20 psychological variables. Psychol Rep, Thousand Oaks, v. 126, n. 4, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941211073656
HESSELMANN, F.; GRAF, V.; SCHMIDT, M.; REINHART, M. The visibility of scientific misconduct: A review of the literature on retracted journal articles. Curr Sociol, The Hague, v. 65, n. 6, p. 814–845, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392116663807
HILGARD, J.; JAMIESON, K. H. Science as “broken” versus science as “self-correcting”: How retractions and peer-review problems are exploited to attack science. In: JAMIESON, K. H.; KAHAN, D. M.; SCHEUFELE, D. A. (Ed.). The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017. p. 85–92. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190497620.013.9
HOCHMAN, G. A ciência entre a comunidade e o mercado: leituras de Kuhn, Bourdieu, Latour e Knorr-Cetina. In: PORTOCARRERO, V. (Org.). Filosofia, história e sociologia das ciências I: abordagens contemporâneas. Rio de Janeiro: Editora FIOCRUZ, 1994. p. 199–231.
HOSSEINI, M.; RASMUSSEN, L. M.; RESNIK, D. B. Using AI to write scholarly publications. Account Res, New York, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2023.2168535
HSIAO, T.-K.; SCHNEIDER, J. Continued use of retracted papers: Temporal trends in citations and (lack of) awareness of retractions shown in citation contexts in biomedicine. Quant Sci Stud, Cambridge, v. 2, n. 4, p. 1144–1169, 2022. https://doi.org /10.1162/qss_a_00155
JHA, A. False positives: fraud and misconduct are threatening scientific research. The Guardian, London, Thursday 13 Sept. 2012. Disponível em: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/sep/13/scientific-research-fraud-bad-practice. Acesso em: 07 jan. 2023.
JIN, G. Z.; JONES, B.; LU, S. F.; UZZI, B. The reverse Matthew effect: catastrophe and consequence in scientific teams. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2013. NBER Working Paper, n. 19489. Disponível em: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w19489/w19489.pdf. Acesso em: 21 maio 2026.
JOHN, L. K.; LOEWENSTEIN, G.; PRELEC, D. Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling. Psychol Sci, New York, v. 23, n. 5, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611430953
KAKUK, P. The legacy of the Hwang case: research misconduct in biosciences. Sci Eng Ethics, England, v. 15, p. 545–562, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-009-9121-x
KAMALI, N.; ABADI, A. T. B.; RAHIMI, F. Plagiarism, Fake Peer-Review, and Duplication: Predominant Reasons Underlying Retractions of Iran-Affiliated Scientific Papers. Sci Eng Ethics, England, v. 26, 3455–3463, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00274-6
KHADEMIZADEH, S.; DANESH, F.; ESMAEILI, S.; LUND, B.; SANTOS-D’AMORIM, K. Evolution of retracted publications in the medical sciences: Citations analysis, bibliometrics, and altmetrics trends. Account Res, New York, v. 31, n. 8, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2023.2223996
KITCHER, P. The Advancement of Science. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1993.
KOBASHI, N. Y.; DÍAZ, F.; SANTANA, S. Cartografia temática e de colaboração em organização do conhecimento no Brasil (2000-2010). Ci. Inf., Brasília, v. 41, n. 1, p. 36–49, 2014. Disponível em: https://revista.ibict.br/ciinf/article/view/1417. Acesso em: 17 abr. 2023.
KNORR-CETINA, K. The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science, Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1981.
KNORR-CETINA, K. The ethnografica study of scientific work: towards a constructivist interpretation of science. In: KNORR-CETINA, K. D.; MULKAY, M. Science observed: perspectives on the social study of science. Londres e Beverly Hills: Sage, 1983. p. 115-40.
KNORR-CETINA, K. Merton's Sociology of Science: The First and the Last Sociology of Science? Contemp Sociol, Washington, v. 20, n. 4, p. 522–526, 1991. https://doi.org/10.2307/2071782
KOCHAN, C. A.; BUDD, J. M. The persistence of fraud in the literature: the Darsee case. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol, Hoboken, v. 43, n. 7, p. 488–493, 1992. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199208)43:7<488::AID-ASI3>3.0.CO;2-7
KOSKINEN, I.; ROLIN, K. Distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate roles for values in transdisciplinary research. Stud Hist Philos Sci, Oxford, v. 91, p. 191–198, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2021.12.001
KUHN, T. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962.
KUHN, T. The Essential Tension. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1977.
KÜHBERGER, A.; STREIT, D.; SCHERNDL, T. Self-correction in science: The effect of retraction on the frequency of citations. PLOS ONE, San Francisco, v. 17, n. 12, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277814
LAFOLLETTE, M. C. Stealing into print: fraud, plagiarism, and misconduct in scientific publishing. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992.
LAKATOS, I. Science and Pseudoscience. In: WORRALL, J.; CURRIE, G. (org.). The methodology of scientific research programmes: Philosophical Papers Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978. p. 1–7.
LARIVIÈRE, V., ARCHAMBAULT, É.; GINGRAS, Y. Long-term variations in the aging of scientific literature: From exponential growth to steady-state science (1900–2004). J Assoc Inf Sci Technol, Hoboken, v. 59, n. 2, p. 288–296, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20744
LAUDAN, L. (1982) ‘Science at the Bar—Causes for Concern’, Science, Technology, and Human Values, v. 7, n. 41, p. 16–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224398200700402 Acesso em: 19 maio 2026.
LATOUR, B.; WOOLGAR, S. Laboratory life: the construction of scientific facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979.
LE COADIC, Y-F. Pandémie du Covid19 et crise d’information: la réponse de la science de l'information. Inf. Pauta, Fortaleza, v. 6, n. especial, p. 9–23, 2021. Disponível em: http://periodicos.ufc.br/informacaoempauta/article/view/78014. Acesso em: 02 jan. 2023
LEI, L.; ZHANG, Y. Lack of Improvement in Scientific Integrity: An Analysis of WoS Retractions by Chinese Researchers (1997–2016). Sci Eng Ethics, England, v. 24, p. 1409–1420, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9962-7
LETA, J.; ARAUJO, K.; TREIBER, S. Citing documents of Wakefield’s retracted article: the domino effect of authors and journals. Scientometrics, Amsterdam, v. 127, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04353-2
LI, S.; XU, W.; YIN, J. Cross-cultural differences in retracted publications of male and female from a global perspective. Scientometrics, Amsterdam, v. 128, 3805–3826, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04717-2
LINE M. B., The “half-life of periodical literature: Apparent and real obsolescence. J. Doc., London v. 26, n. 1, p. 46–54,1970.
LIU, W.; LEI, L. Retractions in the Middle East from 1999 to 2018: a bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, Amsterdam, v. 126, p. 4687–4700, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03919-w
LUND, B. D.; WANG, T.; MANNURU, N. R.; NIE, B.; SHIMRAY, S.; WANG, Z. ChatGPT and a new academic reality: Artificial Intelligence-written research papers and the ethics of the large language models in scholarly publishing. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol, Hoboken, v. 74, n. 5, p. 570– 581, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24750
LOCK, S. Research misconduct: a brief history and a comparison. Journal of lnternal Medicine, v. 235, n. 2, p. 123–127, 1994. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2796.1994.tb01045.x
MABE, M. Does journal publishing have a future? In: CAMPBELL, R. PENTZ, E. BORTHWICK, I. Academic and Professional Publishing. UK: Chandos Publishing, 2015.
MARCUS, A.; ORANSKY, I. What Studies of Retractions Tell Us. J Microbiol Biol Educ, Washington, v. 15, n. 2, 151–154, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v15i2.855
MARICATO, J. M.; VILAN-FILHO, J. L. The potential for altmetrics to measure other types of impact in scientific production: academic and social impact dynamics in social media and networks. Information Research, Sheffield, v. 23, n. 1, 2018. Disponível em: http://InformationR.net/ir/23-1/paper780.html
MARTÍN-MARTÍN, A.; ORDUNA-MALEA, E.; THELWALL, M.; LÓPEZ-CÓZAR, E. D. Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. J. Informetr, Amsterdam, v. 12, n. 4, p. 1160–1177, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002
MARTINSON, B.C.; ANDERSON, M. S.; VRIES, R. Scientists behaving badly. Nature, London, v. 435, p. 737–738, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1038/435737a
MENA, J. D.; NDOYE, M.; COHEN, A. J; KAMAL, P; BREYER, B. N. The landscape of urological retractions: the prevalence of reported research misconduct. BJU Int., Oxford, v. 124, p. 174–179, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14706
MERISTE, H.; PARDER, M. L.; LÕUK, K.; SIMM, K.; LILLES-HEINSAR, L.; VESKI, L.; SOONE, M.; JUURIK, M.; SUTROP, M. Normative analysis of research integrity and misconduct. Brussels: The PRINTEGER Project., 2016. Disponível em: https://printeger.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/D2.3.pdf
MERTON, R. K. Science and Technology in a Democratic Order. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology, v. 1, p. 115–126, 1942.
MERTON, R. K. Priorities in scientific discovery: a chapter in the sociology of science. American Sociological Review, v. 22, n. 6, p. 635–659, 1957.
MERTON, R. K. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. University of Chicago Press, 1962.
MERTON, R. K. Os imperativos institucionais da Ciência. In: DEUS, J. D. (org.). A crítica da Ciência: sociologia e ideologia da Ciência. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar Editores, 1974. p. 37–52.
MINAYO, M. C. S. Introdução: conceito de avaliação por triangulação de método. In: MINAYO, M. C. S; ASSIS, S. G.; SOUZA, E. R. Avaliação por triangulação de métodos: abordagem de programas sociais. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Fiocruz, 2005, p.19–52.
MONGEON, P.; LARIVIÈRE, V. Costly Collaborations: The Impact of Scientific Fraud on Co-Authors' Careers. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol, Hoboken, v. 67, p. 535–542, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23421
MUGNAINI, R. Caminhos para adequação da avaliação da produção científica brasileira: impacto nacional versus internacional. 2006. 253 f. Tese (Doutorado em Ciência da Informação) – Universidade de São Paulo, Escola de Comunicações e Artes, São Paulo, 2006.
NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCES, ENGINEERING, AND MEDICINE. Fostering Integrity in Research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press (US), 2017. https://doi.org/10.17226/21896.
NEOH, M. J. Y.; CAROLLO, A.; LEE, A., ESPOSITO, G. Fifty years of research on questionable research practises in science: quantitative analysis of co-citation patterns. R Soc Open Sci, London, v. 10, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.230677
OECD. ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT GLOBAL SCIENCE FORUM. Best practices for ensuring scientific integrity and preventing misconduct. Relatório. Paris, 2007. Disponível em: https://oeawi.at/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/OECD_bestPractices40188303.pdf
OLIVEIRA, M. B. A epidemia de más condutas na Ciência: o fracasso do tratamento moralizador. Sci. stud., São Paulo, v. 13, n. 4, p. 867–897, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-31662015000400007
ORANSKY, I. What should an ideal retraction notice look like? Retraction Watch, 21/05/2015. Disponível em: https://retractionwatch.com/2015/05/21/what-should-an-ideal-retraction-notice-look-like Acesso em: 20 dez. 2022.
ORANSKY, I.; FREMES, S. E.; KURLANSKY, P.; GAUDINO, M. Retractions in medicine: the tip of the iceberg. European Heart Journal, Oxford, v. 42, 41, p. 4205–4206, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehab398
ORTEGA, C. D.; LARA, M. L. L. G. A noção de documento: de Otlet aos dias de hoje. DataGramaZero, Rio de Janeiro, v. 11, n. 2, 2010. Disponível em: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11959/brapci/7087. Acesso em: 20 dez. 2022.
OSTP. Federal policy on research misconduct. Federal Register, [versão eletrônica] 65, 76260–76264. Disponível em: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2000-12-06/pdf/00- 30852.pdf. Acesso em: 27 dez 2022.
PARADEISE, C.; FILLIATREAU, G. Scientific Integrity Matters. Minerva, New York, v. 59, n. 3, 289–309, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-021-09440-x
PASSARINHO, N. Coronavírus: Chefes de UTIs ligam ‘kit Covid’ a maior risco de morte no Brasil. BBC News Brasil, Londres, 23 de março de 2021. Disponível em: https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/brasil-56457562 Acesso em: 23 jan. 2023.
PENG, H.; ROMERO, D. M.; Horvát, E-A. Dynamics of cross-platform attention to retracted papers. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, Washington, v. 119, n. 25, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2119086119
PFEIFER M. P.; SNODGRASS, G. L. The continued use of retracted, invalid scientific literature. J. Am. Med. Assoc., Chicago, v. 263, n. 10, 1990. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1990.03440100140020
POPPER, K. R. The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson & Co., 1959.
PRIEM, J.; HEMMINGER, B. M. Scientometrics 2.0: Toward new metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web. First Monday, Chicago, v. 15, n. 7, 2010. Disponível em: https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2874/2570 Acesso em: 26 abr. 2024.
PRIEM, J. Altmetrics. In: CRONIN, B.; SUGIMOTO, C. R. (ed.). Beyond Bibliometrics: harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact. Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2014. p. 263-287.
PULVERER, B. When things go wrong: correcting the scientific record. EMBO J., Oxford, v. 34, n. 20, p. 2483–2485, 2015. https://doi.org/10.15252/embj.201570080
QUINTANS-JÚNIOR, L. J.; GURGEL, R. Q.; ARAUJO, A. A. S.; CORREIA, D.; MARTINS-FILHO, P. ChatGPT: The new panacea of the academic world. Rev. Soc. Bras. Med. Trop., Brasília, v. 56, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1590/0037-8682-0060-2023
RATES, C. M. P.; PESSALACIA, J. D. R. Conhecimento de pesquisadores acerca das normas éticas para pesquisas envolvendo humanos. Rev. bioét., Brasília, v. 21, n. 3, 2013. Disponível em: https://www.scielo.br/j/bioet/a/t37KJdDNYyV8L8tXdSmFvRg/?format=pdf&lang=pt. Acesso em 16 jan. 2023
RAVN, T., SØRENSEN, M.P. Exploring the Gray Area: Similarities and Differences in Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) Across Main Areas of Research. Sci Eng Ethics, England, v. 27, n. 40, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00310-z
REDMAN, B. K.; YARANDI, H. N; MERZ, J. F. Empirical developments in retraction. J Med Ethics, London, v. 34, n. 11, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2007.023069
REHMAN, I.; GANAIE, S.A.; WANI, J. A. Research that sparked attention on the social Web in 2020: an Altmetric analysis of “top 100” articles. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication, London, v. 72, n. 6/7, p. 554–571, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-08-2021-0136
RESNIK, D. B. The ethics of science: An introduction. London: Routledge, 1998.
RESNIK D. B. Scientific Autonomy and Public Oversight. Episteme, Cambridge, v. 5, n. 2, 220–238, 2008. https://doi.org/10.3366/E1742360008000336
RESNIK, D. B.; WAGER, E.; KISSLING, G. E. Retraction policies of top scientific journals ranked by impact factor. J Med Libr Assoc, Chicago, v. 103, n. 3, p. 136–139, 2015. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.103.3.006
RESNIK, D. B.; ELLIOTT, K. C. Value-Entanglement and the Integrity of Scientific Research. Stud Hist Philos Sci. Oxford, v. 75, p 1–11, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2018.12.011
RESNIK, D. B.; ELLIOTT, K. C. Science, Values, and the New Demarcation Problem. J Gen Philos Sci, Dordrecht, v. 54, p. 259–286, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-022-09633-2
RESNIK, D. B.; STEWART JR., C. N. Misconduct versus Honest Error and Scientific Disagreement. Account Res., London, v. 19, n. 1, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2012.650948
RETRACTION… The first-ever English language retraction (1756)? Retractionwatch.com, New York, Monday, 27 Feb. 2012. Disponível em: https://retractionwatch.com/2012/02/27/the-first-ever-english-language-retraction-1756/ Acesso em: 11 dez. 2022.
RETRACTION… Weekend reads: How university rankings lead to bad science; how to report research misconduct; the impact of Retraction Watch reporting (2023). Retractionwatch.com, New York, Saturday, 03 June 2023. Disponível em: https://retractionwatch.com/2023/06/03/weekend-reads-how-university-rankings-lead-to-bad-science-how-to-report-research-misconduct-the-impact-of-retraction-watch-reporting/ Acesso em: 03 jun. 2023.
RIBEIRO, M. D.; MENA-CHALCO, J.; ROCHA, K. A.; PEDROTTI, M.; MENEZES, P.; VASCONCELOS, S. M. R. Are female scientists underrepresented in self-retractions for honest error? Front Res Metr Anal, Lausanne, v. 8, 2023. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2023.1064230
RIVKIN, A. Manuscript Referencing Errors and Their Impact on Shaping Current Evidence. Am J Pharm Educ, New York, v. 84, n. 7, 2020. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7846
ROSA, A. R. “Nós e os Índices” – um Outro Olhar sobre a Pressão Institucional por Publicação. RAE, Rio de Janeiro, v. 48, n. 4, p.108–114, 2008. Disponível em: https://www.scielo.br/j/rae/a/pVHyH74Nxqz3nsd5XNWsD7H/?format=pdf&lang=pt Acesso em 16 jan. 2023.
RUBBO, P.; LIEVORE, C.; DOS SANTOS, C. B.; PILATTI, L. A. Retractions in the Engineering Field: A Study on the Web of Science Database, Ethics Behav, London, v. 29, n. 2, p. 141–155, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2017.1390667
SANTOS-D’AMORIM, K. Dinâmica das retratações de artigos científicos na América Latina e implicações na cultura de integridade em pesquisa e governança na Ciência. 2024. Tese (Doutorado em Ciência da Informação) – Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, 2024. Disponível em: https://repositorio.ufpe.br/handle/123456789/59707 Acesso em: 14 jun. 2026.
SANTOS-D’AMORIM, K.; MELO, R. R.; SANTOS, R. N. M. Retractions and post-retraction citations in the COVID-19 infodemic: is Academia spreading misinformation? Liinc em Revista, Rio de Janeiro, v. 17, n. 1, p. 1–19, 2021. https://doi.org/10.18617/liinc.v17i1.5593
SANTOS-D’AMORIM, K.; CORREIA, A. E. G. C. C.; MIRANDA, M. K. F. O.; SANTA-CRUZ, P. Reasons and implications of retracted articles in Brazil. TransInformação, Campinas, v. 33, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1590/2318-0889202133e210001
SANTOS-D'AMORIM, K.; WANG, T.; LUND, B.; SANTOS, R. N. M. From plagiarism to scientific paper mills: A profile of retracted articles within the SciELO Brazil collection. Ethics Behav, London, v. 34, n. 1, p. 40–57, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2022.2141747
SANTOS-D'AMORIM, K.; SANZ-CASADO, E. ; SANTOS, R. N. M. Errors, questionable practices, or misconduct? A bibliometric and altmetric review covering two decades of retractions in Latin America. Scientometrics, Amsterdam, v. 130, p. 1-28, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-025-05343-w
SANTOS, R. N. M.; KOBASHI, N. Y. Bibliometria, cientometria e infometria: conceitos e aplicações. Pesq. bras. Ci. Inf., Brasília, v. 2, n.1, p.155–172, 2009. Disponível em: https://revistas.ancib.org/index.php/tpbci/article/view/174/174. Acesso em: 16 jan. 2023.
SCHNEIDER, J.; YE, D.; HILL, A. M.; WHITEHORN, A. S. Continued post-retraction citation of a fraudulent clinical trial report, 11 years after it was retracted for falsifying data. Scientometrics, Amsterdam, v. 125, p. 2877–2913, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03631-1
SCHNEIDER, J. W.; HORBACH, S. P. J. M.; AAGAARD, K. Stop blaming external factors: A historical-sociological argument. Soc Sci Inf (Paris), Los Angeles, v. 60, n. 3 p. 329–337, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/05390184211018123
SERGHIOU, S.; MARTON, R. M; IOANNIDIS, J. P. A. Media and social media attention to retracted articles according to altmetric. PLOS ONE, San Francisco, v. 16, n. 5, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248625
SHAMOO, A. E.; RESNIK, D. B. Responsible conduct of research. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
SHAMSI, A.; LUND, B. D.; SEYYEDHOSSEINI, S. Sharing of retracted COVID-19 articles: An altmetric study. J Med Libr Assoc, Chicago, v. 110, n. 1, 97–102, 2022. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2022.1269
SHEMA, H. HAHN, O.; MAZARAKIS, A.; PETERS, I. Retractions from altmetric and bibliometric perspectives. Inf.-Wiss. Prax, Berlin, v. 70, n. 2–3, p. 98–110, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1515/iwp-2019-2006
SIMUNDIĆ, A. M. Bias in Research. Biochem Med, Zagreb, v. 23, n. 1, p. 12-15, 2013. https://doi.org/10.11613/bm.2013.003
SIJTSMA, K.; VELDKAMP, C. L. S.; WICHERTS, J. M. Improving the conduct and reporting of statistical analysis in psychology. Psychometrika, North Carolina, v. 81, p. 33–38, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-015-9444-2
SIVA, N.; RAJENDRAN, P. Retracted publications in BRICS countries: an analytical study. Scientometrics, Amsterdam, v. 128, n. 12, p. 6313–6333, 2023. chttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04856-6
SOEHARTONO, A. M.; YU, L. G.; KHOR, K. A. Essential signals in publication trends and collaboration patterns in global Research Integrity and Research Ethics (RIRE). Scientometrics, Amsterdam, v. 127, p. 7487–7497, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04400-y
SOLLA PRICE, D. J. Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press, 1963.
SOLLA PRICE, D. J. Little science, big science – and beyond. New York: Columbia University Press, 1986.
SOTUDEH, H.; BARAHMAND, N.; YOUSEFI, Z.; YAGHTIN, M. How do academia and society react to erroneous or deceitful claims? The case of retracted articles’ recognition. J Inf Sci, Thousand Oaks, v. 48, n. 2, p. 182–198, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551520945853
STAVALE, R.; FERREIRA, G. I.; GALVÃO, J. A. M. et al. Research misconduct in health and life sciences research: A systematic review of retracted literature from Brazilian institutions. PLOS ONE, San Francisco, v. 14, n. 4, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214272
STEEN, R. G. Retractions in the medical literature: how many patients are put at risk by flawed research? J Med Ethics, London, v. 37, n. 11, p. 688–692, 2011a. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2011.043133
STEEN, R. G. Retractions in the scientific literature: Is the incidence of research fraud increasing? J Med Ethics, London, v. 37, n. 4, 249–253, 2011b. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2010.040923
STEEN, R. G. Misinformation in the medical literature: what role do error and fraud play? J Med Ethics, London, v. 37, n. 8, p. 498–503, 2011c. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2010.041830
STEEN, R. G. Retractions in the medical literature: how can patients be protected from risk? J Med Ethics, London, v. 38, n. 4, p. 228–232, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2011-100184
STERN, A. M.; CASADEVALL, A.; STEEN, R. G.; FANG, F. C. Research: Financial costs and personal consequences of research misconduct resulting in retracted publications. eLife, Cambridge, v. 3, 2014. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02956
STEWART JR., C. N. Research Ethics for Scientists: A companion for students. Chichester: Willey-Blackwall, 2011.
STILLMAN, D. Retracted item notifications with Retraction Watch integration. Zotero.org. 14/06/2019. Disponível em: https://www.zotero.org/blog/retracted-item-notifications/ Acesso em: 21 jan. 2023.
STRINGER, C. The 100-year mystery of Piltdown Man. Nature, London, v. 492, p. 177–179, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1038/492177a
STOKEL-WALKER, C. ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: many scientists disapprove. Nature, London, v. 613, p. 620-621, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00107-z
SUELZER, E. M.; DEAL, J.; HANUS, K.; RUGGERI, B.; SIERACKI, R.; WITKOWSKI, E. Assessment of citations of the retracted Article by Wakefield et al With Fraudulent Claims of an Association Between Vaccination and Autism. JAMA Netw Open, Chicago, v. 2, n. 11, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.15552
SUELZER, E. M.; DEAL, J.; HANUS, K.; RUGGERI, B. E.; WITKOWSKI, E. Challenges in identifying the retracted status of an article. JAMA Netw Open, Chicago, v. 4, n. 6, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.15648
TEIXEIRA DA SILVA, J. A.; BORNEMANN-CIMENTI, H. Why do some retracted papers continue to be cited? Scientometrics, Amsterdam, v. 110, p. 365–370, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2178-9
TEIXEIRA DA SILVA, J. A. A Synthesis of the formats for correcting erroneous and fraudulent academic literature, and associated challenges. J Gen Philos Sci, Dordrecht, v. 53, p. 583–599, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-022-09607-4
TEIXEIRA DA SILVA, J.A., DOBRÁNSZKI, J. Notices and Policies for Retractions, Expressions of Concern, Errata and Corrigenda: Their Importance, Content, and Context. Sci Eng Ethics, England, v. 23, p. 521–554, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9769-y
TEIXEIRA DA SILVA, J. A.; VUONG, Q-H. Fortification of retraction notices to improve their transparency and usefulness. Learn Publ, Hatfield, v. 35, p. 292–299, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1409
TEIXEIRA DA SILVA, J. A.; SANTOS-D’AMORIM, K.; BORNEMANN-CIMENTI, H. The Citation of Retracted Papers and Impact on the Integrity of the Scientific Biomedical Literature. Learn Publ, Hatfield, v. 38, n. 2, 2025 https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1667
THAGARD, Paul R. Why astrology is a pseudoscience. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, v. 1978, n. 1, p. 223-234, 1978. Disponível em: http://www.jstor.org/stable/192639. Acesso em: 19 maio 2026.
THAGARD, P. Computational Philosophy of Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1988.
TREIN, E.; RODRIGUES, J. O mal-estar na academia: produtivismo científico, o fetichismo do conhecimento-mercadoria. Rev. Bras. Educ., Rio de Janeiro, v. 16, n. 48, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-24782011000300012
UNLU, A.; TRUONG, S.; SAWHNEY, N.; SIVELÄ, J.; TAMMI, T. Long-term assessment of social amplification of risk during COVID-19: challenges to public health agencies amid misinformation and vaccine stance. J Comput Soc Sci, Singapore, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-024-00257-8
URBIZAGASTEGUI, R. A produtividade dos autores sobre a Lei de Lotka. Ci. Inf., Brasília, v. 37, n. 2, p. 87–102, 2008. https://doi.org/10.18225/ci.inf.v37i2.1214
van der VET, P. E.; NIJVEEN, H. Propagation of errors in citation networks: a study involving the entire citation network of a widely cited paper published in, and later retracted from, the journal Nature. Res Integr Peer Rev, London, v. 1, p. 1–10, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-016-0008-5
VAN NOORDEN, R. More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 — a new record. Nature, London, v. 624, p. 479–481, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03974-8
VANTI, N.; SANZ-CASADO, E. Altmetria: a métrica social a serviço de uma ciência mais democrática. Transinformação, Campinas, v. 28, n. 3, p. 349–358, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1590/2318-08892016000300009
VAISRUB, S. Autoplagiarism. J Am Med Assoc, Chicago, v. 239, n. 5, p. 437, 1978. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.1978.03280320053024
VELHO. L. Estratégias para um sistema de indicadores de C&T no Brasil. Parc. Estrat., Brasília, v. 13, p. 109–21, 2001. Disponível em: https://seer.cgee.org.br/parcerias_estrategicas/article/view/207 Acesso em: 17 jan. 2024.
VUONG, Q.-H. Reform retractions to make them more transparent. Nature, London, v. 582, p. 149, 2020a. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01694-x
VUONG, Q.-H. The limitations of retraction notices and the heroic acts of authors who correct the scholarly record: An analysis of retractions of papers published from 1975 to 2019. Learn Publ, Hatfield, v. 33, p. 119–130, 2020b. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1282
VUONG, Q-H.; LA, V-P.; HO, M-T.; VUONG, T-T.; HO, M-T. Characteristics of retracted articles based on retraction data from online sources through February 2019. Science editing, Seoul, v. 7, n. 1, 2020c. https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.187
WHITELY; W. P.; RENNIE; D.; HAFNER, A. W. The Scientific Community's Response to Evidence of Fraudulent Publication: The Robert Slutsky Case. J Am Med Assoc, Chicago, v. 272, n. 2, p. 170–173, 1994. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1994.03520020096029
WISE, J. Covid-19: Vaccines journal retracts controversial paper after editorial board members quit. BMJ, London, v. 374, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1726
WRAY, K. B. A foundational text in scientometrics. Metascience, Kensington, v. 32, p. 235–239, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11016-023-00851-y
XIAO, Y.; CHEN, J.; WU, X. et al. High retraction rate of Chinese articles: it is time to do something about academic misconduct. Postgrad Med J, Oxford, v. 98, n. 1163, p. 653–654, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2021-140853
XU, S. B.; HU, G. A cross-disciplinary and severity-based study of author-related reasons for retraction. Account Res., London, v. 29, n. 8, p. 1–25, 2022a. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2021.1952870
XU, S. B.; HU, G. Retraction Stigma and its Communication via Retraction Notices. Minerva, New York, v. 60, n. 3, 349–374, 2022b. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-022-09465-w
XU, S. B.; EVANS, N.; HU, G.; BOUTER, L. What do Retraction Notices Reveal About Institutional Investigations into Allegations Underlying Retractions? Sci Eng Ethics, England, v. 29, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-023-00442-4
YEO-THE, N. S.; TANG, B. L. Research data mismanagement – from questionable research practice to research misconduct. Account Res., London, v. 31, n. 6 2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2157268
ZAHEDI, Z.; COSTAS, R.; WOUTERS, P. How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications. Scientometrics, Amsterdam, v. 101, p. 1491–1513, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1264-0
ZAROCOSTAS, J. How to fight an infodemic. Lancet, London, v. 395, n. 10225, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30461-X
ZIMAN, J. Public Knowledge. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1968.
ZIMAN, J. M. A Força do Conhecimento. Tradução: Eugênio Amado. São Paulo: Editora Itatiaia; Edusp, 1981a.
ZIMAN, J. M. Puzzles, problems and enigmas: occasional pieces on the human aspects of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981b.
ZIMAN, J. M. An Introduction to Science Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
ZIMAN, J. M. O conhecimento confiável. Uma exploração dos fundamentos para a crença na ciência. Tradução: Tomás R. Bueno. Campinas, SP: Papirus, 1996.
ZIMAN, J. M. Why must scientists become more ethically sensitive than they used to be? Science, New York, v. 282, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.282.5395.1813
ZUCKERMAN, H. Is “the time ripe” for quantitative research on misconduct in science? Quant Sci Stud, Cambridge, v. 1, n. 3, p. 945–958, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00065
