| [1] |
Henshall AC. 2018. English language policies in scientific journals: Signs of change in the field of economics. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 36:26−36 doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2018.08.001 |
| [2] |
Guinda CS. 2022. The tug-of-war of journal editing: Trust and risk in focus. In The Inner World of Gatekeeping in Scholarly Publication, eds. Habibie P, Hultgren AK. Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. pp. 185–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06519-4_11 |
| [3] |
Dobránszki J, Teixeira da Silva JA. 2016. Editorial responsibilities: both sides of the coin. Journal of Educational and Social Research 6:9 doi: 10.5901/jesr.2016.v6n3p9 |
| [4] |
Noel M. 2022. Opening up of editorial activities at chemistry journals. What does editorship mean and what does it involve? Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics 7:747846 doi: 10.3389/frma.2022.747846 |
| [5] |
Santos AT, Mendonça S. 2022. The small world of innovation studies: an "editormetrics" perspective. Scientometrics 127:7471−86 doi: 10.1007/s11192-022-04279-9 |
| [6] |
Teixeira da Silva JA, Nazarovets S. 2022. The role of Publons in the context of open peer review. Publishing Research Quarterly 38:760−81 doi: 10.1007/s12109-022-09914-0 |
| [7] |
Teixeira da Silva JA. 2021. A reality check on publishing integrity tools in biomedical science. Clinical Rheumatology 40:2113−14 doi: 10.1007/s10067-021-05668-w |
| [8] |
Misra DP, Ravindran V. 2021. Detecting and handling suspected plagiarism in submitted manuscripts. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh 51:115−17 doi: 10.4997/jrcpe.2021.201 |
| [9] |
Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Voronov AA, Koroleva AM, Kitas GD. 2018. Updated editorial guidance for quality and reliability of research output. Journal of Korean Medical Science 33:e247 doi: 10.3346/jkms.2018.33.e247 |
| [10] |
Ferragut JF, Pinto N, Amorim A, Picornell A. 2019. Improving publication quality and the importance of post publication peer review: The illustrating example of X chromosome analysis and calculation of forensic parameters. Forensic Science International. Genetics 38:E5−E7 doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2018.11.006 |
| [11] |
Szomszor M, Quaderi N. 2020. Research Integrity: Understanding our shared responsibility for a sustainable scholarly ecosystem. Report. Institute for Scientific Information (ISI). https://clarivate.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/ISI-Research-Integrity-Report.pdf |
| [12] |
Teixeira da Silva JA, Dobránszki J. 2015. Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review. Accountability in Research 22:22−40 doi: 10.1080/08989621.2014.899909 |
| [13] |
Rivera H, Teixeira da Silva JA. 2021. Retractions, fake peer reviews, and paper mills. Journal of Korean Medical Science 36:e165 doi: 10.3346/jkms.2021.36.e165 |
| [14] |
Teixeira da Silva JA. 2021. Outsourced English revision, editing, publication consultation and integrity services should be acknowledged in an academic paper. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 23:81 doi: 10.1007/s11051-021-05199-0 |
| [15] |
Yamada Y. 2021. How to protect the credibility of articles published in predatory journals. Publications 9:4 doi: 10.3390/publications9010004 |
| [16] |
Zakaria MS. 2022. Online manuscript editing services for multilingual authors: A content analysis study. Science & Technology Libraries 41:90−111 doi: 10.1080/0194262X.2021.1932695 |
| [17] |
Bhatt B. 2021. A multi-perspective analysis of retractions in life sciences. Scientometrics 126:4039−54 doi: 10.1007/s11192-021-03907-0 |
| [18] |
Rahimi M, Shahryari A. 2019. The role of autocorrect software use in learning English as a foreign language. Technology of Education Journal 13:511−20 |
| [19] |
Teixeira da Silva JA, Vuong QH. 2021. Fortification of retraction notices to improve their transparency and usefulness. Learned Publishing 35:292−99 doi: 10.1002/leap.1409 |
| [20] |
Xu SB, Hu G. 2022. A cross-disciplinary and severity-based study of author-related reasons for retraction. Accountability in Research 29:512−36 doi: 10.1080/08989621.2021.1952870 |
| [21] |
Cabanac G, Labbé C, Magazinov A. 2021. Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science. Evidence of critical issues affecting established journals. arXiv Preprint:1−27 doi: abs/2107.06751 |
| [22] |
Rogerson AM. 2020. The use and misuse of online paraphrasing, editing and translation software. In A Research Agenda for Academic Integrity, ed. Bretag T. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. pp. 163–74. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789903775.0019 |
| [23] |
Roe J, Perkins M. 2022. What are automated paraphrasing tools and how do we address them? A review of a growing threat to academic integrity International Journal for Educational Integrity. 18:15 doi: 10.1007/s40979-022-00109-w |
| [24] |
Wahle JP, Ruas T, Foltýnek T, Meuschke N, Gipp B. 2022. Identifying machine-paraphrased plagiarism. In International Conference on Information. iConference 2022: Information for a Better World: Shaping the Global Future, ed. Smits M. Switzerland: Springer, Cham. pp. 393–413. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-96957-8_34 |
| [25] |
Teixeira da Silva JA. 2022. Tortured phrases dilute the specificity of medical jargon. Journal of Health and Social Sciences 7:137−40 doi: 10.19204/2022/TRTR2 |
| [26] |
Teixeira da Silva JA. 2022. The mythical heterosexual charge of a lithium-ion battery. Engineering and Applied Science Letter 5:18−20 |
| [27] |
Teixeira da Silva JA. 2021. A tortured phrase claims heterosexuality of the carbon structure. Results in Physics 30:104842 doi: 10.1016/j.rinp.2021.104842 |
| [28] |
Teixeira da Silva JA. 2022. Is Alzheimer's disease by any other name still Alzheimer's disease? Journal of Alzheimer's Disease Reports. www.j-alz.com/content/alzheimers-disease-any-other-name-still-alzheimers-disease |
| [29] |
Else H. 2021. 'Tortured phrases' give away fabricated research papers. Nature 596:328−29 doi: 10.1038/d41586-021-02134-0 |
| [30] |
Busse CE, Anderson EW, Endale T, Smith YR, Kaniecki M, et al. 2022. Strengthening research capacity: a systematic review of manuscript writing and publishing interventions for researchers in low-income and middle-income countries. BMJ Global Health 7:e008059 doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-008059 |
| [31] |
Horbach SPJMS, Halffman WW. 2018. The changing forms and expectations of peer review. Research Integrity and Peer Review 3:8 doi: 10.1186/s41073-018-0051-5 |
| [32] |
Mills D, Inouye K. 2021. Problematizing 'predatory publishing': A systematic review of factors shaping publishing motives, decisions, and experiences. Learned Publishing 34:89−104 doi: 10.1002/leap.1325 |
| [33] |
Teixeira da Silva JA. 2016. An error is an error… is an erratum. The ethics of not correcting errors in the science literature. Publishing Research Quarterly 32:220−26 doi: 10.1007/s12109-016-9469-0 |
| [34] |
Yamada Y, Teixeira da Silva JA. 2022. A psychological perspective towards understanding the objective and subjective gray zones in predatory publishing. Quality & Quantity 56:4075−87 doi: 10.1007/s11135-021-01307-3 |
| [35] |
Teixeira da Silva JA, Vuong Q-H. 2021. Do legitimate publishers profit from error, misconduct or fraud. Exchanges 8:55−68 doi: 10.31273/eirj.v8i3.785 |
| [36] |
Teixeira da Silva JA. 2022. A synthesis of the formats for correcting erroneous and fraudulent academic literature, and associated challenges. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 53:583−99 doi: 10.1007/s10838-022-09607-4 |
| [37] |
Vuong Q-H. 2020. Reform retractions to make them more transparent. Nature 582:149 doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-01694-x |
| [38] |
Teixeira da Silva JA, Al-Khatib A. 2021. Ending the retraction stigma: encouraging the reporting of errors in the biomedical record. Research in Ethics 17:251−59 doi: 10.1177/1747016118802970 |