What is the root cause for the increasing number of papers being retracted?

Answer Explanations

• C) Pressure on scientists to publish for monetary or reputation gain G) Other (please explain)

  user-629736
  Pressure on scientists to publish even an insignificant piece of work for university world ranking
• A) Broken peer review system E) Lack of scientific integrity among authors

  user-402415
  Especially young reviewers "judge" articles that are far away from their field of "knowledge" ... and the papermills do not help diminish the number of articles. One should discuss reducing publishing and only publish "finished" stories and not many, many "small histories"
• B) Greed from the journals publishing companies C) Pressure on scientists to publish for monetary or reputation gain F) Improved methods for detecting bad/fraudulent papers

  user-550889
  The pressure on researchers to increase their publication inventory is more than ever, and for-profit scientific publishing firms only make the decision for publishing low-quality works easier. On the other hand, machine learning tools that can sift through big data and detect anomalies in the methods and statistical analysis, as well as possible plagiarism are getting better and better. 
• A) Broken peer review system C) Pressure on scientists to publish for monetary or reputation gain

  user-553722
  The scientific publishing system depends on voluntary review- should have professional and compensated reviewers 
• C) Pressure on scientists to publish for monetary or reputation gain D) The creation and expansion of "Paper Mills"

  user-197537
  Impact factor considered more than Citation factor.
  
  Dominance of small groups of individuals in sciene.
• B) Greed from the journals publishing companies C) Pressure on scientists to publish for monetary or reputation gain

  user-935064
  I was tempted to check (G) and add all of the above.  Despite the relatively recent move to require self identification of potential conflicts and to reveal funding sources, garbage is still being published.  The problem of bending science has been examined and found to have an alarming percentage of papers with detectable bias.  One of the most pervasive /systematic, dare I say fraudulent science,  was exposed by Dr. Tyrone Hayes and recently expanded in a review paper by Dr. Jason Rohr addressing problems in research dealing with pesticides.  A lot of shameful actions by prominent academics in collaboration with industry have and continue to occur.
• A) Broken peer review system C) Pressure on scientists to publish for monetary or reputation gain

  user-625125
  NA
• A) Broken peer review system B) Greed from the journals publishing companies C) Pressure on scientists to publish for monetary or reputation gain D) The creation and expansion of "Paper Mills" E) Lack of scientific integrity among authors F) Improved methods for detecting bad/fraudulent papers G) Other (please explain)

  user-819356
  The selection of reviewers is a crucial process that requires careful consideration and transparency. Rreviewers should be compensated for their work with an appropriate amount of currency. On the other hand, I find it unacceptable that publishing houses charge fees for publishing scientific papers. In contrast, the reviewers who evaluate the quality of the papers do not receive any remuneration. This creates a situation where the most important role in the scientific publication process is not adequately recognized or rewarded. How do you feel about this practice? As a result, many senior researchers are reluctant to serve as reviewers , and the task is left to inexperienced or less qualified individuals.
  
  
• C) Pressure on scientists to publish for monetary or reputation gain F) Improved methods for detecting bad/fraudulent papers

  user-532952
  The number of journals and papers publishes are growing as the population of scientists grows. Real time proportional growth estimates are needed. Is the PROPORTIONAL  growth  being estimated, or only numerical growth.
• B) Greed from the journals publishing companies D) The creation and expansion of "Paper Mills"

  user-697831
  See above
• A) Broken peer review system B) Greed from the journals publishing companies C) Pressure on scientists to publish for monetary or reputation gain F) Improved methods for detecting bad/fraudulent papers

  user-17476

  Reviewers should be paid for their time and work in order to avoid broken peer review system. 
  Journals want to publish fast, which puts pressure on reviewers but also on authors.
  Publications constitute a pivotal component in the researcher's curriculum vitae, exerting a profound influence on their professional trajectory and overall success within the academic or scientific community. As a consequence, there is a tendency for an accelerated production of articles, often compromising on the overall quality of the research output
  
  

  
  
  

  
  
• B) Greed from the journals publishing companies D) The creation and expansion of "Paper Mills"

  user-778496
  It speaks for itself
• A) Broken peer review system B) Greed from the journals publishing companies

  user-37487

  Articles must undergo a double-blind review, both the authors and the reviewer must be anonymous.

  
  
• C) Pressure on scientists to publish for monetary or reputation gain E) Lack of scientific integrity among authors

  user-492588
  All of the above may be contributing to the problem. However, the work of the scientist must be intrinsically ethical. It is part of the job description. Thus, none of the other factors should be an excuse. It does not matter if the peer-review process is broken, if the publishing companies are greedy, pressure from universities to publish, etc... Unethical values are a root cause. Unfortunately, there is often no criminal implications for unethical researchers unless money is involved (for example, deviation or inappropriate use of funds). So, there is not much punishment. Recently, I found a paper that plagiarized one of my papers. I was able to quickly prove the plagiarism (it was pretty obvious; I provided several proofs). However, it took 1 year for the publishing journal to retract it and it only happened when I asked the COPE to help. They evaluated and accepted my case. After their acceptance, the publishing journal immediately retracted the paper. Besides the retraction, there was not much punishment for the authors who plagiarized my paper. 
• B) Greed from the journals publishing companies C) Pressure on scientists to publish for monetary or reputation gain D) The creation and expansion of "Paper Mills" E) Lack of scientific integrity among authors

  user-607892
  As stated in the above comments section
• E) Lack of scientific integrity among authors F) Improved methods for detecting bad/fraudulent papers

  user-21303
  Papers are retracted due to many reasons. In addition to above causes, plagiarism,lack of integrity to publishing ethis, and data errors are main causes of retraction. 
• C) Pressure on scientists to publish for monetary or reputation gain E) Lack of scientific integrity among authors

  user-676638
  Ranking business globally has created a lot of pressure on universities to publish more and more, and univerisity administrators transmit this pressure down to their faculty and students. This combined with lack of integrity among authors leads to fraud papers. Particulary private universities in developing countries have adopted a policy of lowering their standards for passing students, and such poorly trained students (some of them will go on to be 'poor' faculty in future) never fully understand the rigor of genuine scientific research. Since administrators like vice-chancellors and Registrars have nothing much to show to university management as thier conribution, they simply want to highlight the ranking achieved in their tenure, and that can be done only be maintaining pressure on faculty to publish, which in turn creates probability for bogus papers.
• A) Broken peer review system E) Lack of scientific integrity among authors

  user-786071
  Peer review is getting biased. The authors give names of known reviewers and gets it published with acceptance. The scientific integrity among the researchers itself is getting decreased day by day.
• C) Pressure on scientists to publish for monetary or reputation gain F) Improved methods for detecting bad/fraudulent papers

  user-330818
  Research work is a competitive career, requires extensive time investment and commitment to be productive in order to obtain outputs and career rewards. Without personal integrity, humility and proactive leadership, many find it very challenging and very tough and often find it unsustainable to continue. This leads to taking short cuts in publication outputs.
• D) The creation and expansion of "Paper Mills" F) Improved methods for detecting bad/fraudulent papers

  user-960566
  The incentives on every part of the system is broken. Education and scientific training along with peer networks that operate beyond publishing are the main check points that continue to preserve research integrity but even those are under increasing stress lately.
• A) Broken peer review system C) Pressure on scientists to publish for monetary or reputation gain

  user-807100
  Poor-quality papers, particularly those which are heavily influenced by the drug/device industry, are commonly cited to promote their business. It makes sense to continue publishing such articles.
• B) Greed from the journals publishing companies C) Pressure on scientists to publish for monetary or reputation gain

  user-906051
  See above - it is a vicious circle.
• C) Pressure on scientists to publish for monetary or reputation gain E) Lack of scientific integrity among authors

  user-741891
  1st. people without good moral values, 2nd, infinite pressure towards publications (constant number of them) + wrong peer review system (unpaid !!!!!).
• A) Broken peer review system B) Greed from the journals publishing companies

  user-142393
  I am aghast that the big players in the publication industry (eg Elsevier) are making money for shareholders from government-sponsored university research- the free labour of researchers/authors and then reviewers and then again when university libraries are paying to access papers with research that the universities have conducted. It's such a broken system, and no wonder it is hard to find reviewers, let alone people with the expertise to genuinely critique the research.  
• E) Lack of scientific integrity among authors

  user-615007
  Authors are willing to do things that for their narratives in spite of the facts
• A) Broken peer review system B) Greed from the journals publishing companies

  user-19585
  If reviewers were paid to review manuscripts, they would put in more effort but as it stands it is just not worth it to spend time out of your busy schedule doing unpaid work.
• C) Pressure on scientists to publish for monetary or reputation gain F) Improved methods for detecting bad/fraudulent papers

  user-515387
  The incentives for researchers are badly designed to favor quantity over quality. The main responsibilities are on the University' s side. The proliferation of predatory and low quality published is an effect, not the cause.
• B) Greed from the journals publishing companies E) Lack of scientific integrity among authors

  user-149708
  same as above
• C) Pressure on scientists to publish for monetary or reputation gain D) The creation and expansion of "Paper Mills"

  sab2x
  I think the publish or perish pressure on academics, with much of their career success based on numbers of publications (not necessarily quality), drives a lot of poor quality and/or fraudulent publications.  The expansion and use of "paper mills" to assist in publication is also a problem as their business models feed on the pressure to publish, so the financial incentive to publish "garbage" is there.   I think the real core of the problem is still the academics "need" to publish versus an assessment of quality of what gets published.   To this end, the administrators in universities need to take a clearer role in driving quality and doing the hard work of assessing quality for purposes of career versus an number count.
  
  
• A) Broken peer review system B) Greed from the journals publishing companies

  user-125695
  It is very expensive to publish and peer review is not compensated.
• A) Broken peer review system B) Greed from the journals publishing companies C) Pressure on scientists to publish for monetary or reputation gain

  user-471505
  The "publish or perish" culture in academia puts pressure on researchers to produce a high volume of work. This can lead to cutting corners, rushing through quality controls, and, in some cases, unethical behavior, increasing the likelihood of retractions.
• A) Broken peer review system B) Greed from the journals publishing companies C) Pressure on scientists to publish for monetary or reputation gain D) The creation and expansion of "Paper Mills" E) Lack of scientific integrity among authors F) Improved methods for detecting bad/fraudulent papers G) Other (please explain)

  user-439235
  Other important development/s in the scientific arena with the discovery of artificial intelligence (AI), tools like ChatGPT have made writing very accessible to all age groups, especially, the scientific community. Earlier researchers like myself had to go thru conducting review reading abstracts on pubmed, downloading interesting articles/papers and highlighting, making notes and drawing conclusion. This would take months. These days, you just can get everything at your fingertips in a matter of seconds, using AI tools. 
  Not sure if we should be happy with the new discoveries (technological) or fell bad about where the scientific community has headed. 
• A) Broken peer review system C) Pressure on scientists to publish for monetary or reputation gain E) Lack of scientific integrity among authors G) Other (please explain)

  user-313662
  The stress on peer reviewers is also high - the need to have high turn-around while maintaining their own research output, doing what is essentially a volunteer job; this pressure leads to review that is not (understandably) completely thorough - I think it is safe to say that peer reviewers generally do not comb through every single paper referenced to be entirely sure that every point made is substantiated by the reference in question. There is also a limitation in doing this in that not everyone has the same access to all the same articles, depending on the institution you might belong to. 
• C) Pressure on scientists to publish for monetary or reputation gain F) Improved methods for detecting bad/fraudulent papers

  user-870604
  The current advancement in technology is able to detect fraudulent papers at a click of a button.
  
  
  
• C) Pressure on scientists to publish for monetary or reputation gain E) Lack of scientific integrity among authors

  user-654647
  Multiple reasons 
• C) Pressure on scientists to publish for monetary or reputation gain F) Improved methods for detecting bad/fraudulent papers

  user-96641
  The Publish or Perish pressure is very real and alive, and people are feeling it hard, resulting in both negligence and fraud. Until it relaxes we will see researchers pushing out papers at inhuman rate, and thus retractions... 
• B) Greed from the journals publishing companies C) Pressure on scientists to publish for monetary or reputation gain

  user-217984
  Monetary benefits are very much involved in publication of the articles, as well as in many countries and their institutions, the criteria of appointments and promotion is linked with number of articles. There is also lucrative incentives for research publication. 
• A) Broken peer review system B) Greed from the journals publishing companies C) Pressure on scientists to publish for monetary or reputation gain

  user-753537
  Broken publication system (publishing companies making money, researchers working for free and paying journals to read or publish papers)  + publish or perish pressure on researchers
• C) Pressure on scientists to publish for monetary or reputation gain D) The creation and expansion of "Paper Mills"

  user-83601
  In my opinion, there is a huge pressure on scientists to publish ("Publish or Perish") with a disproportionate emphasis on quantity, rather than quality. 
• A) Broken peer review system C) Pressure on scientists to publish for monetary or reputation gain D) The creation and expansion of "Paper Mills" G) Other (please explain)

  user-85552
  There is an increasing pressure on scientists to publish, publication in any journal and of any quality is positively perceived by supervisors. Additionally there is too many journals (even from reputable publishing houses) that generate too many papers that is beyond the capacity of experienced peer-reviewers - because of that journals contact less experienced reviewers who are more prone to miss crucial inconsistencies or mistakes in papers. 
• A) Broken peer review system C) Pressure on scientists to publish for monetary or reputation gain E) Lack of scientific integrity among authors F) Improved methods for detecting bad/fraudulent papers G) Other (please explain)

  user-165379
  Use of Artificial Intelligence bots such as ChatGPT leading to poorly written papers.
• A) Broken peer review system

  user-826281
  Popular topics and conclusions are accepted, even when the data does not support the conclusion.  Unpopular results and conclusions are outright rejected.
• C) Pressure on scientists to publish for monetary or reputation gain E) Lack of scientific integrity among authors

  user-158216
  Evaluation metrics for career progression are the milestones any worker looks forward. In science, unfortunatelly, all that has mattered were papers published, citations and H-index, and journal metrics (quartiles and impact factor). All this leaves out the merit of the work conducted, its innovations, and the broad contribution to the field / society. However, the extreme oposit (lacking metrics) is also not feasible since it will lead to nepotism. Evaluation metrics should be developed based on measurable qualitative scales.