最近，rsc advances一次性撤稿68篇 ，原因是涉嫌系统性学术造假，目前已经公布的撤稿名单的机构基本都是来自我国。
不管很多人如何看待oa期刊，起码的底线是学术真实，可能这个要求太理想化，毕竟我们身边各种明着的，暗着的学术不端正行为实在太多。
期刊只是不同level成果的发表平台，而大量伪成果的核心问题是对科学共同体造成严重的影响，当很高比例的前人成果变得都“有问题”，科研就变成了一场奇怪的游戏了。


   想知道哪些单位的请RSC数据库搜就知道，文章都是涉及生物医学领域的，本人不负责帮各位一篇一篇数并且统计哪些单位都有多少篇，所有回复想知道哪些单位的自行统计，谢谢！


撤稿社论全文如下：
rsc advances editorial: retraction of falsified manuscripts
[https://doi.org/10.1039/d1ra90009a]

    as a journal it is our responsibility to uphold the integrity of the scientific record, and this is something we take very seriously. over the next few weeks, we will be retracting 68 articles published in rsc advances. these retractions are on the basis of what we believe to be the systematic production of falsified research. such manipulation of the publication system has been covered widely in the media during 2020, and, while we are not the only journal or publisher to have been affected, this has prompted us to stringently review our processes to ensure that, as far as possible, such papers cannot make it through to publication in the future. we have chosen to publish this editorial in order to be as transparent as possible about the situation, and hope that this will encourage other publishers to take the same approach.
      over the course of 2020 we carried out an extensive investigation into a number of published papers. these papers came to our attention through an update to the scholarone system that generated an  linking many papers from different authors. we began investigating papers that triggered this , working with independent image integrity and scientific experts, and consulting with other publishers who are also affected. we identified common features across these papers, as well as instances of image duplication and manipulation to varying degrees. the papers cover similar topics, usually related to manipulation of proteins or other biomolecules to target specific genes or cellular processes for beneficial medicinal effects. many of these papers are written with very similar structures or templates, despite having no common authors. these papers often appear to be legitimate when viewed in isolation, and many of the concerning features only come to light when comparing features across many papers, making them very difficult for individual editors or reviewers to detect.
    rsc advances has always stood for high levels of ethical publishing behaviour, and we are therefore disappointed that our values have been systematically attacked. the size of our journal and breadth of our scope make us a particular target for this type of manipulation, but that does not excuse us from taking responsibility. this is a serious breach of our ethical policies, and as members of the committee on publication ethics (cope), we have followed their guidelines during our investigation. the thoroughness of our investigation highlights our determination to uphold the highest ethical standards in our journal and we will continue to leave no stone unturned, to ensure there are no more papers linked to this investigation published in our journal. further information on the individual circumstances for each paper will be included in the retraction notice for that paper. 返回小木虫查看更多