Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 357–382 | Cite as

Promoting Ethics and Integrity in Management Academic Research: Retraction Initiative

  • Freida Ozavize AyodeleEmail author
  • Liu Yao
  • Hasnah Haron
Review Paper


In the management academic research, academic advancement, job security, and the securing of research funds at one’s university are judged mainly by one’s output of publications in high impact journals. With bogus resumes filled with published journal articles, universities and other allied institutions are keen to recruit or sustain the appointment of such academics. This often places undue pressure on aspiring academics and on those already recruited to engage in research misconduct which often leads to research integrity. This structured review focuses on the ethics and integrity of management research through an analysis of retracted articles published from 2005 to 2016. The study employs a structured literature review methodology whereby retracted articles published between 2005 and 2016 in the field of management science were found using Crossref and Google Scholar. The searched articles were then streamlined by selecting articles based on their relevance and content in accordance with the inclusion criteria. Based on the analysed retracted articles, the study shows evidence of ethical misconduct among researchers of management science. Such misconduct includes data falsification, the duplication of submitted articles, plagiarism, data irregularity and incomplete citation practices. Interestingly, the analysed results indicate that the field of knowledge management includes the highest number of retracted articles, with plagiarism constituting the most significant ethical issue. Furthermore, the findings of this study show that ethical misconduct is not restricted to a particular geographic location; it occurs in numerous countries. In turn, avenues of further study on research misconduct in management research are proposed.


Ethics Integrity Misconducts Management academic research Structured review analysis 


  1. Akhavan, P., Ebrahim, N. A., Fetrati, M. A., & Pezeshkan, A. (2016). Major trends in knowledge management research: A bibliometric study. Scientometrics, 107(3), 1249–1264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, M. S., Shaw, M. A., Steneck, N. H., Konkle, E., & Kamata, T. (2013). Research integrity and misconduct in the academic profession. In Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 217–261). Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Batane, T. (2010). Turning to turnitin to fight plagiarism among university students. Educational Technology & Society, 13(2), 1–12.Google Scholar
  4. Bedeian, A. G., Taylor, S. G., & Miller, A. N. (2010). Management science on the credibility bubble: Cardinal sins and various misdemeanors. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(4), 715–725.Google Scholar
  5. Bird, S. J., & Dustira, A. K. (2000). New common federal definition of research misconduct in the United States. Science and Engineering Ethics, 6(1), 123–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borrego, M., Foster, M. J., & Froyd, J. E. (2014). Systematic literature reviews in engineering education and other developing interdisciplinary fields. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(1), 45–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen, S., & Macfarlane, B. (2016). Academic integrity in China. In Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 1–6).Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Corbett, A., Cornelissen, J., Delios, A., & Harley, B. (2014). Variety, novelty, and perceptions of scholarship in research on management and organizations: An appeal for ambidextrous scholarship. Journal of Management Studies, 51(1), 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Deng, M. -R., & Qing, L. (2007). Retracted: A Tentative Study on Venture Capital Investment in China. Proceedings of the International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, 4015–4018.Google Scholar
  11. Dumay, J., Guthrie, J., & Puntillo, P. (2015). IC and public sector: A structured literature review. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 16(2), 267–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., Pölkki, T., Utriainen, K., & Kyngäs, H. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: A focus on trustworthiness. Sage Open, 4(1), 2158244014522633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fanelli, D., Costas, R., & Larivière, V. (2015). Misconduct policies, academic culture and career stage, not gender or pressures to publish, affect scientific integrity. PLoS ONE, 10(6), e0127556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(42), 17028–17033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Farthing, M. J. (2014). Research misconduct: A grand global challenge for the 21st century. Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 29(3), 422–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guraya, S. Y., Norman, R. I., Khoshhal, K. I., Guraya, S. S., & Forgione, A. (2016). Publish or Perish mantra in the medical field: A systematic review of the reasons, consequences and remedies. Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences, 32(6), 1562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harley, B., Faems, D., & Corbett, A. (2014). A few bad apples or the tip of an iceberg? Academic misconduct in publishing. Journal of Management Studies, 51(8), 1361–1363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hess, J. L., & Fore, G. (2017). A systematic literature review of US engineering ethics interventions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 1–33. Google Scholar
  19. Honig, B., & Bedi, A. (2012). The fox in the hen house: A critical examination of plagiarism among members of the Academy of Management. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(1), 101–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Juremi, N. R. M., Zulkifley, M. A., Hussain, A., & Zaki, W. M. D. W. (2017). Inter-rater reliability of actual tagged emotion categories validation using Cohen’s kappa coefficient. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 95(2), 259.Google Scholar
  21. Kacmar, K. M. (2009). From the editors: An ethical quiz. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 432–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Karami, M., Malekifar, S., Beigi Nasiri, A., Beigi Nasiri, M., Feili, H., & Khan, S. U. R. (2015). Retraction: “A conceptual model of the relationship between market orientation and supply chain performance”. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 34(4), 103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lai, M. M., Lau, S. H., & Lai, M. L. (2010). Notice of Retraction Life-long education and financial planning of graduate students: Evidence from Malaysia. Proceedings of the IEEE 2nd International Conference on Education Technology and Computer, 2, V2-251–V2-254.Google Scholar
  24. Larsson, R. (1993). Case survey methodology: Quantitative analysis of patterns across case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1515–1546.Google Scholar
  25. Massaro, M., Dumay, J., & Garlatti, A. (2015). Public sector knowledge management: A structured literature review. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19(3), 530–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nicolae, M. (2014). Retracted: Taking Action that Matters: A Dynamic Approach to Professional Development and Teacher Learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 142, 718–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Office of the Science and Technology Policy. (2000). Federal research misconduct policy. Federal Register, 65(235), 76260–76264.Google Scholar
  28. Pinho, I., Rego, A., & Pina e Cunha, M. (2012). Improving knowledge management processes: A hybrid positive approach. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(2), 215–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pupovac, V., & Fanelli, D. (2015). Scientists admitting to plagiarism: A meta-analysis of surveys. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(5), 1331–1352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Robertson, C. J., Blevins, D. P., & Duffy, T. (2013). A five-year review, update, and assessment of ethics and governance in Strategic Management Journal. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(1), 85–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Russikoff, K., Fucaloro, L., & Salkauskiene, D. (2003). Plagiarism as a cross-cultural phenomenon. The CATESOL Journal, 15(1), 127–142.Google Scholar
  32. Salam, M. A. (2009). Retracted article: corporate social responsibility in purchasing and supply chain. Journal of Business ethics, 85(2), 355–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schminke, M. (2009). Editor’s comments: The better angels of our nature—Ethics and integrity in the publishing process. Academy of Management Review, 34, 586–591.Google Scholar
  34. Schminke, M., & Ambrose, M. L. (2011). Retracted: Ethics and Integrity in the Publishing Process: Myths, Facts, and a Roadmap. Management and Organization Review, 7(3), 397–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Steneck, N. H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tan, H. T., Libby, R., & Hunton, J. E. (2010). Retracted: When do analysts adjust for biases in management guidance? effects of guidance track record and analysts’ incentives. Contemporary Accounting Research, 27(1), 187–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tohidi, H., & Jabbari, M. M. (2012). Retracted: Studying impact of organizational learning on innovating. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 408–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tseng, H. C., Duan, C. H., Tung, H. L., & Kung, H. J. (2010). Erratum to: Modern business ethics research: Concept, theory and relationships. Journal of business ethics, 93(3), 495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vahedi, M., & Irani, F. N. H. A. (2011). Retracted: Information technology (IT) for knowledge management. Procedia Computer Science, 3, 444–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wang, K. J., Makond, B., & Lin, Y. S. (2010). Notice of Retraction Forecasting based inventory management for supply chain. In Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery (FSKD), 2010 Seventh International Conference on IEEE, (Vol. 6, pp. 2964–2967).Google Scholar
  41. Wier, B., Stone, D. N., & Hunton, J. E. (2005). Does graduate business education contribute to professional accounting success?(Retracted). Accounting Horizons, 19(2), 85–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yao, L., & Zhu, Y. (2009). Notice of Retraction The Study on Grey Evaluation Method of Enterprise's Knowledge Innovation Ability Based on AHP. In Management and Service Science. MASS'09. International Conference on IEEE, 1–4.Google Scholar
  43. Zhao, D., Xu, Q., & Zuo, W. (2010). Notice of retraction research and practice in the curriculum system for majors in software engineering. In 2010 Second international workshop on education technology and computer science (ETCS) (Vol. 1, pp. 417–420). IEEE.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Freida Ozavize Ayodele
    • 1
    Email author
  • Liu Yao
    • 1
    • 2
  • Hasnah Haron
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Industrial ManagementUniversiti Malaysia PahangGambang, KuantanMalaysia
  2. 2.Faculty of Industrial ManagementGovernance and Integrity Center (FGIC)Gambang, KuantanMalaysia

Personalised recommendations