Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Retraction Note to: Scientometrics (2021) 126:1897–1921 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03852-4
The Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article (Macháček & Srholec, 2021) because some of the findings are unreliable. Post-publication peer review indicated the article includes statements about authors from some geographic regions which are unjustified in the generality of the conclusions. Findings are based on a regression analysis; however, this analysis did not include a control group. The regression analysis is, therefore, not complete and the results are unreliable.
Results and findings are based on a so-called blacklist and are not supplemented by any results obtained using a positive control group. In this context, the Scopus database cannot be considered a control group, since it is a comprehensive bibliographic database. Similarly, the analysis was restricted to publications in four languages (English, Spanish, French, and Arabic). The results of the regression analysis are inconclusive for publications in languages not included in the analysis. The authors have been offered the opportunity to submit a new reworked manuscript for peer review. Vít Macháček and Martin Srholec disagree with this retraction.
Reference
Macháček, V., & Srholec, M. (2021). Predatory publishing in Scopus: Evidence on cross-country differences. Scientometrics, 126, 1897–1921. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03852-4
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
About this article
Cite this article
Macháček, V., Srholec, M. Retraction Note to: Predatory publishing in Scopus: evidence on cross-country differences. Scientometrics 127, 1667 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04149-w
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04149-w