calcutta university research paper

• My Shodhganga
• Receive email updates
• Edit Profile

Shodhganga : a reservoir of Indian theses @ INFLIBNET

• Shodhganga@INFLIBNET

University of Calcutta : [14244] University home page

Recent Submissions

• 750 Life Sciences
• 671 Physical Sciences
• 466 Social Sciences
• 397 Studies
• 366 Physics
• 281 Arts and Humanities
• 275 Physics Multidisciplinary
• 267 Literature
• 265 Biology and Biochemistry
• 250 Chemistry
• 1455 2020 - 2024
• 4774 2010 - 2019
• 1505 2000 - 2009
• 1725 1990 - 1999
• 1985 1980 - 1989
• 1663 1970 - 1979
• 894 1960 - 1969
• 127 1950 - 1959
• 5 1940 - 1949
• 2 1932 - 1939
• 10318 English US
• 2982 English
• 116 Bengali

Departments in this University

All indian institute of hygiene and public health [4], central food technological research institute [2], department of agricultural chemistry [17], department of agricultural chemistry and soil science [57], department of agriculture [240], department of agronomy [33], department of anaesthesiology [2], department of anatomy [11], department of ancient indian history & culture [80], department of animal physiology [9], department of anthropology [212], department of applied chemistry [112], department of applied mathematics [202], department of applied mechanics [1], department of applied optics and photonics [84], department of applied physics [107], department of applied psychology [177], department of arabic & persian [37], department of archaeology [50], department of archaeology and biochemistry [1], department of arts [389], department of atmospheric science [21], department of atomic energy [4], department of ayurveda [17], department of bacterial immunology [1], department of bengali language and literature [689], department of biochemical engineering [2], department of bio-chemistry [855], department of biochemistry and biophysics [6], department of biochemistry and nutrition [3], department of bio-physics [35], department of biophysics, molecular biology and bioinformatics [72], department of biophysics, molecular biology and genetics [56], department of biotechnology [281], department of botany [687], department of business management [126], department of cardiology [1], department of cell biology [1], department of ceramic technology [2], department of cfrtri [1], department of chemical engineering [49], department of chemical technology [137], department of chemistry [536], department of chemistry and metallurgy [1], department of chemistry fuels and metallurgy [4], department of civil engineering [3], department of commerce [336], department of comparative indian language and literature [1], department of comparative philology [10], department of comparative philology and linguistics [7], department of computer science [14], department of computer science & engineering [70], department of computer science & technology [1], department of economics [292], department of economics and political science [2], department of education [238], department of electrical engineering [4], department of electronic and tele-communication engineering [2], department of electronics and communication sciences unit [1], department of electronic science [54], department of embryology [1], department of endocrinology [2], department of engineering [15], department of english language and literature [165], department of entomology [1], department of environmental science [21], department of enzyme engineering [4], department of epidemiology [2], department of experimental medical sciences [1], department of food and nutrition [3], department of food technology and biochemical engineering [8], department of french [5], department of general physics and x-rays [52], department of general surgery [2], department of genetics [31], department of genetics and plant breeding [34], department of geography [387], department of geology [142], department of haematology [7], department of haemato-oncology and medical oncology [1], department of hindi [169], department of history [157], department of home science [71], department of horticulture [17], department of humanities [1], department of humanities and social sciences [1], department of indian association for the cultivation of science [1], department of indian institute of experimental medicine [3], department of indian statistical institute [1], department of information technology [35], department of inorganic chemistry [15], department of international relations [1], department of islamic history and culture [23], department of journalism [23], department of journalism & mass communication [24], department of jute and fibre technology [4], department of languages [4], department of law [81], department of library and information science [67], department of life science [5], department of linguistics [43], department of macromolecules [18], department of magnetism [9], department of marine science [42], department of mathematics [46], department of mathematics and geophysics [1], department of mechanical engineering [5], department of medical [9], department of medical entomology [7], department of medical microbiology and parasitology [2], department of medicine [67], department of metallurgical engineering [5], department of metallurgy [7], department of microbiology [200], department of mining engineering [1], department of molecular biology [0], department of molecular pathophysiology [1], department of museology [58], department of music [3], department of nanoscience and nanotechnology [37], department of nepali [1], department of neurological science [8], department of obstetrics and gynaecology [6], department of ophthalmology [1], department of optics [12], department of organic chemistry [7], department of orthopaedic surgery [1], department of paediatrics [1], department of painting [1], department of pali [95], department of pali & sanskrit [1], department of parasitology [2], department of pathology [13], department of pathology and bacteriology [20], department of persian [7], department of pharmacology [16], department of pharmacy [15], department of philosophy [147], department of physical chemistry [12], department of physics [627], department of physiology [408], department of physiology and biochemistry [2], department of plant physiology [18], department of plastics and rubber technology [38], department of political science [151], department of polymer science and technology [90], department of psychology [175], department of pure chemistry [10], department of pure mathematics [138], department of radio physics and electronics [87], department of radiotheraphy [1], department of sanskrit [161], department of science [2230], department of seed science and technology [9], department of sociology [63], department of solid state physics [6], department of south and south east asian studies [12], department of statistics [87], department of tamil studies [4], department of technology [171], department of textile technology [7], department of theoretical physics [19], department of toxicology [1], department of tumor biology [7], department of urdu [84], department of veterinary science [17], department of virology [2], department of visual art [7], department of women studies [22], department of zoology [611], department of zoology and entomology [1], institute of development studies kolkata [6], physical and earth science division [1], s n pradhan centre for neurosciences [7], swami vivekananda centre for multidisciplinary research in educational studies, department of educational studies, affiliated under university of calcutta [1].

Year of Establishment : 1916

History of the department : In academic arena in 19th century world context, Psychology was considered to be a new inclusion of Science. Wilhelm Wundt in the University of Leipzig, first realized the importance of studying mental states under certain special experimental conditions as a separate science. The closing years of the 19th century witnessed the appearance of a new branch of science which came to be known as Experimental Psychology. Impressed by its promise and progress, Sir Asutosh Mukherjee, who was then the planning head to introduce at the Calcutta University Post-Graduate course of studies in various disciplines of Arts and Science, decided to include Experimental Psychology in his list. At his request eminent philosopher Dr. Brojendra Nath Seal, King George V Professor of Mental and Moral Philosophy of the same University, drew up the syllabus in 1905 after consulting the courses of studies of different Universities in Europe and America, and established a laboratory for demonstration purpose. Eleven years later this laboratory was upgraded as the first Psychology Department, the Department of Experimental Psychology. Narendra Nath Sengupta, who chaired this department, had his education at Harvard University with Hugo Munsterberg, a student of William Wundt. Laboratory research at Calcutta in the areas of depth perception, psychophysics, and attention inspired early work at other centres. Recognizing the scientific nature of research, psychology was included as a separate section in the Indian Science Congress in 1923. Thus, psychology in India at an early stage acquired the status of a science along with physical and biological sciences. The Indian Psychological Association was founded in 1924 and the Indian Journal of Psychology, the first psychology journal in India, appeared the very next year. Before these experimental traditions could consolidate, Sengupta left Calcutta. He was succeeded by Girindra Shekhar Bose. He established the Lumbini Park Mental Hospital in Calcutta in 1940, and in 1947 brought out a journal 'Samiksha'. The Department started an Applied Psychology Wing in 1938, when Jung, Meyers, and Spearman were invited to the Silver Jubilee Session of the Indian Science Congress. Starting from Calcutta University Department, Psychology in India has been expanding rapidly in 21st century. There seems to be the growth of Psychology in having a number of eminent research and clinical institutes in its developmental fold. The areas of research interests are covering the topics of Neuropsychology, Counselling Psychology, Educational Psychology, Indigenous Psychology, Developmental disability, Media Psychology, Social Psychology, Cross-cultural Psychology, studies on aggression and terrorism, in addition to continuous interest in clinical Psychology and Psychoanalysis.

Special award/ recognition from UGC or related statutory body:

• Special Assistance Programme (SAP) DRS -1;
• Participation in CPEPA RCI recognized course of M.Phil Clinical Psychology (2005-2015)

Thrust areas in teaching and research of the academic department :

• Clinical Psychology
• Developmental Disability
• Social Psychology
• Cognitive Neuropsychology
• Experimental Psychology
• Qualitative Research

Major activities :

• Inter-Departmental Research Project of UGC on Electro-physiological and Neuro-imaging studies including mathematical modeling under the Scheme Centre with Potential for Excellence in Particular Area (CPEPA) Participating departments are Psychology, Applied Mathematics and Physiology.
• The Department of Psychology, University of Calcutta has successfully completed its research work, being credited with the Centre for the Study of Developmental Disability under DRS-I, Special Assistance Programme, sponsored by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
• Organized Centenary Conference in Psychology: An International Event, from 9th-11th October, 2015, in collaboration with the Department of Applied Psychology, University of Calcutta at Nano Center, Salt Lake, University of Calcutta
• Organized National Seminar on History of Psychology in India on 18-19th March, 2015 in collaboration with the Department of Applied Psychology, University of Calcutta and Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture, Golpark, Kolkata.
• Organized International Conference on Developmental Disability, 6th-8th March, 2014.

Academic & Other Activities:

• Regular theoretical and practical classes and tutorials
• Regular seminars, journal clubs, --movie clubs, case conferences, group discussions with audio-visual medium
• Individual student counselling
• Regular assessments of the students through assignments

Clinical Services Offered (with regular faculty supervision)

• Common facilities provided to the community through assessment, counseling and psychotherapy to psychiatric patients referred by different government hospitals and N.G.Os.
• Common facilities are also provided to N.G.O. s which deal with disability and with other physical disorders (cancer, hypertension, HIV etc.).
• These services are rendered without any monetary charges .
• Clinical assessment in different Disability Camps organized by Govt. & Non- Govt. Institutions allover state.
• In C.U.I.I.P.P. (Calcutta University Industry Institute Partnership Programme), the Department has clinical diagnostic and counseling unit, since 2002 .

Source of referral of clients

• Department of Psychiatry, Calcutta Medical College & Hospital, Kolkata
• Department of Psychiatry, Nilratan Sircar Medical College & Hospital, Kolkata
• Department of Psychiatry, R G Kar Medical College & Hospital, Kolkata
• Department of Psychiatry, M R Bangur Hospital, Kolkata
• Department of Psychiatry, National Medical College & Hospital, Kolkata
• Department of Psychiatry, Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education & Research, Kolkata (known as Institute of Psychiatry)
• Department of Child Psychiatry, Institute of Child Health, Kolkata
• Department of Pediatrics, Institute of Child Health, Kolkata
• Pavlov Hospital, Kolkata
• Mon Foundation, Center for Mental Health Care, Kolkata
• Department of Neurology, ESI Hospital, Kolkata
• Port Trust Hospital, Kolkata
• B. R. Singh Hospital, Kolkata
• Border Security Force Hospital, Kolkata
• Police Hospital, Kolkata
• Department of Psychiatry, Apollo Gleneagles Hospital, Kolkata
• Department of Psychiatry, Vivekananda Institute of Postgraduate Education & Research, Ramkrishna Mission Hospital, Kolkata
• District Hospitals of various districts of West Bengal
• Referrals from Consultant Psychiatrists, Clinical Psychologists, Special Educators, Physicians, Pediatrics, School & College Counsellors as well as teachers
• Different NGOs, Special and Regular Schools.

Campus : Rashbehari Siksha Prangan (commonly known as Rajabazar Science College Campus)

Address for communication : 92, A.P.C. Road, Kolkata - 700 009 Dial: 2350-8386/6387/6396/1397 (Extn. 381)

• Seed Science and Technology
• Horticulture
• Plant Physiology
• Genetics and Plant Breeding

• Applied Mathematics

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

•  We're Hiring!
•  Help Center

• Add Social Profiles (Facebook, Twitter, etc.)

CALCUTTA UNIVERSITY ECONOMICS

• Other Affiliations: add
• Research Interests: Development Economics , Environmental Economics , International Economics , Input Output Economics , and Labour Economics () edit
• About: M.PHIL. IN ECONOMICS, 2013-2015, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS, UNIVERSITY OF CALCUTTA, 56 A B.T.ROAD, KOLKATA -700050, INDIA edit
• Advisors: edit

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• Academia.edu Publishing
•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Education News

Calcutta University starts institutional repository to increase global reach of research papers

Visual Stories

Call for Papers

9th research scholars' workshop, 2023-24.

Submissions are invited from PhD scholars and early career researchers for the 9 th Annual Research Scholars’ Workshop organized by the Department of Economics, University of Calcutta. We will only accept full papers in PDF format . The PhD affiliation, email and any secondary affiliation of the corresponding author must be written on the title page. The details of the conference are given below:

Date: 2-3 February, 2024 (Friday-Saturday)

Venue: Department of Economics, University of Calcutta. 56 A, B.T.Road. Kolkata – 700050

Registration fee: No registration fee.

Accommodation: We will not provide any accommodation. However, outstation candidates may book rooms in Youth Hostel which is very close to our department. (Youth Hostel link: http://www.youthhostelkolkata.com/ )

Submission email: [email protected]

Last date for paper submission: 1 st November, 2023

Acceptance notification: 20 November, 2023

For any other query please email to Anirban Mukherjee ( ameco [at] caluniv.ac.in ) or Biswajit Ray  (breco[at]caluniv.ac.in)

Research ethics: a profile of retractions from world class universities

• Published: 23 May 2021
• Volume 126 , pages 6871–6889, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

• Caroline Lievore   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2448-089X 1 ,
• Priscila Rubbo   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2488-4627 1 ,
• Celso Biynkievycz dos Santos   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2107-8299 2 ,
• Claudia Tânia Picinin   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4844-3516 1 &
• Luiz Alberto Pilatti   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2679-9191 1  

8264 Accesses

16 Citations

36 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This study aims to profile the scientific retractions published in journals indexed in the Web of Science database from 2010 to 2019, from researchers at the top 20 World Class Universities according to the Times Higher Education global ranking of 2020. Descriptive statistics, Pearson's correlation coefficient, and simple linear regression were used to analyze the data. Of the 330 analyzed retractions, Harvard University had the highest number of retractions and the main reason for retraction was data results. We conclude that the universities with a higher ranking tend to have a lower rate of retraction.

Similar content being viewed by others

Assisting you to advance with ethics in research: an introduction to ethical governance and application procedures

Ethics in Research with Special Reference to Social Sciences

Bounded research ethicality: researchers rate themselves and their field as better than others at following good research practice

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Unethical research undermines confidence in researchers, universities, journals, and in science itself. In this sense, the peer review process, along with the responsible and transparent correction of articles, aims to guarantee the quality of knowledge available (Fang & Casadevall, 2011 ; Fennell, 2019 ; Lei & Zhang, 2018 ). However, even if research is submitted to peer review, this process may fail (Van Leeuwen & Luwel, 2014 ), and research with honest or dishonest errors does get published, as well as those with scientific dishonesty. For example, in May 2020, the British journal The Lancet published an article associating the use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine with increased deaths in patients diagnosed with Covid-19, which resulted in the interruption of testing of the drug globally. A few days later, the journal published a retraction stating that it could not guarantee the accuracy of primary data sources and opted to withdraw the article, which caused repercussions worldwide (Boseley & Davey, 2020 ). Incorrect publications like the chloroquine study result in negative impacts not only on the scientific community, but also on society (Berlinck, 2011 ; Dobránszki & Silva, 2019 ; Elliott et al., 2013 ; Fang & Casadevall, 2011 ; Resnik & Dinse, 2013 ) and the authors themselves, which can jeopardize their careers (Mongeon & Larivière, 2016 ). When a mistake or misconduct is identified, a retraction of the fraudulent article must be published (Sox & Rennie, 2006 ), providing a mechanism for correcting the literature, alerting the scientific community, and demonstrating to society that the scientific community corrects its mistakes (Browman, 2019 ; Fang & Casadevall, 2011 ; Vuong et al., 2020 ).

Some authors lay blame with the global publishing industry (Fanelli et al., 2015 ; Lei & Zhang, 2018 ), claiming that developing, publishing, and evaluating research should be limited to only a few qualified professionals, and not to the vast scientific workforce that currently exists (Hu et al., 2019 ). While the honesty and integrity of researchers are threatened by the atmosphere of “publish or perish”, a consequence of the pressure to publish (Fanelli et al., 2015 ; Hu et al., 2019 ; Lacetera & Zirulia, 2011 ; Lei & Zhang, 2018 ), the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has made important steps toward ensuring that ethical practices become part of the editorial culture, encouraging researchers and publishers to report errors to safeguard the reliability of the journal (Wager et al., 2010 ). In addition, COPE recommends that retractions should: avoid defamatory language; be published free of charge and immediately in all versions of the journal; ensure that the retraction is clearly identified as such, including the title and authors; and highlight the reason for the article’s withdrawal, which can minimize harmful effects and further dissemination of the error (COPE, 2020 ).

In recent years, studies on retractions have been conducted on publications in areas such as clinical and health sciences (Brainard, 2018 ; Fang et al., 2012 ; Fennell, 2019 ; Gasparyan et al., 2014 ; Nair et al., 2020 ; Steen et al., 2013 ; Van Leeuwen, 2019 ), information science (Ajiferuke & Adekannbi, 2020 ), and engineering (Rubbo, et al., 2019 ). Other studies have correlated scientific retractions to the impact factor of the journals (Fang et al., 2012 ; Fang & Casadevall, 2011 ; Resnik, 2015 ), assessed the probability of retraction and elapsed time between publication and retraction (Tang et al., 2020 ), examined post-retraction citations (Rubbo, Pilatti, et al., 2019 ), and discussed the impact of retractions on the academic life of authors and co-authors (Mongeon & Larivière, 2016 ). In addition, studies have identified factors that affect the scientific integrity of retracted researchers (Fanelli et al., 2015 ), analyzed retractions in the Chinese scientific community (Lei & Zhang, 2018 ; Tang, 2019 ), proposed the correction of indicators such as the impact factor and H-index, considering the growing numbers of retractions and a greater need for transparency in science (Dobránszki & Silva, 2019 ), and developed a taxonomy of the distribution of errors in retraction notices (Andersen & Wray, 2019 ).

Based on these studies, the current situation in relation to retractions has at least four relevant characteristics. First, the retraction rate has increased since the first published retraction in the 1970s (Ajiferuke & Adekannbi, 2020 ; Brainard, 2018 ; Fang et al., 2012 ; Grieneisen & Zhang, 2012 ; He, 2013 ; Lei & Zhang, 2018 ; Resnik, 2015 ; Tang et al., 2020 ; Vuong et al., 2020 ). This growth is linked to the number of journals that began to retract articles, and not necessarily an increase in scientific misconduct (Brainard, 2018 ; Fanelli et al., 2015 ). Analyses have focused on understanding whether misconduct has increased or whether more cases are identified due to improved detection tools (Grieneisen & Zhang, 2012 ; Steen et al., 2013 ).

Studies have also shown that the number of retractions has been decreasing (Brainard, 2018 ; Van Leeuwen, 2019 ). However, this reduction is due to the fact that many erroneous articles have not yet been discovered (Lacetera & Zirulia, 2011 ; Lei & Zhang, 2018 ; Van Leeuwen, 2019 ) and not all articles with ethical problems will be retracted (Cokol et al., 2007 ). It is likely that the fraudulent articles discovered to date correspond to an insignificant portion of the scientific production with ethical problems, since almost 2% of scientists questioned in a previous study admitted to having falsified or manufactured data (Fanelli, 2009 ).

The second characteristic of retractions in the current context is that most of the articles withdrawn for fraud originate from countries with a long tradition in research, such as the United States, Germany, Japan, and China (Fang et al., 2012 ; He, 2013 ; Hu et al., 2019 ; Tang et al., 2020 ; Van Leeuwen, 2019 ), and are published in journals with a high impact factor (Cokol, 2007 ; Fang et al., 2012 ; He, 2013 ; Steen, 2011 ; Tang et al., 2020 ). On the other hand, plagiarism and duplicate publications generally come from countries that are newer to research and are generally associated with low-impact factor journals (Fang et al., 2012 ) or reflect idiosyncratic factors (Brainard, 2018 ). Such findings may represent the greater scrutiny granted to articles in high-impact journals, and the uncertainties commonly associated with cutting-edge, innovative research (Cokol et al., 2007 ; Fang & Casadevall, 2011 ). While Brainard’s ( 2018 ) research shows that researchers from countries or institutions that have well-developed policies to address research misconduct tend to have fewer retractions, the number of journals that have established these policies remains low.

Although retractions mostly come from countries with a tradition in research and high-impact journals, they occur in all areas of knowledge, from medicine to engineering and the social sciences (Grieneisen & Zhang, 2012 ; Lei & Zhang, 2018 ; Rubbo et al., 2019 ). However, when analyzing retractions in the Web of Science database (WoS), studies by Grieneisen and Zhang ( 2012 ), Fanelli et al. ( 2015 ), Fang et al. ( 2012 ), Tang et al. ( 2020 ), and Vuong et al. ( 2020 ), have shown that the percentages of retractions in the area of chemistry, biomedical sciences, and life sciences are high.

The third characteristic refers to the reasons for retraction identified in the studies, which can be classified as either misconduct (fabrication and falsification of data, duplicate publication, or plagiarism) or unintentional or honest errors (Fang et al., 2012 ; Grieneisen & Zhang, 2012 ; Tang et al., 2020 ; Van Leeuwen, 2019 ). There are several identified types of misconduct, including self-plagiarism (Broome, 2004 ; Russo, 2014 ), data concealment, flawed procedures in data collection, inadequate data retention and storage, incorrect authorship (Thomas & Nelson, 2002 ), salami slicing, bias and conflict of interest, intentional erroneous use of statistical methods (Mojon-Azzi & Mojon, 2004 ), publication of images without permission (Sharma & Shingh, 2011 ), inclusion of authors who did not contribute to the research, limited participation in the granting of funds, materials or equipment (Amorim, 2011 ), and fake peer review which has become one of the main reasons for retraction (Vuong et al., 2020 ). According to COPE, all cases of scientific misconduct must be retracted (Wager et al., 2010 ).

A limiting factor in identifying the reason for retraction is that notices of withdrawal are often either very vague, making it difficult to distinguish between misconduct and error, or the reason is not mentioned, thus generating a certain amount of ambiguity (Almeida et al., 2016 ; Bosch et al., 2012 ; Van Leeuwen, 2019 ; Van Noorden, 2011 ). This leads to an underestimation of the percentage of fraudulent articles (Fang, et al., 2012 ). Retractions must describe the reason for withdrawal, indicate those responsible for the misconduct, if any, and identify any other factors that resulted in the retraction of the article (Silva & Dobránszki, 2017 ).

The fourth characteristic refers to ‘prolific retractors’, or authors for which several articles have been retracted, which generally correspond to researchers who are highly productive (Brainard, 2018 ; Fanelli et al., 2015 ; Grieneisen & Zhang, 2012 ; Tang et al., 2020 ). Brainard’s ( 2018 ) research has shown that a few authors are responsible for a disproportionate number of retractions. Only 500 of the more than 30,000 authors named in Retraction Watch represent about a quarter of the 10,500 retractions analyzed. Approximately 100 authors have 13 or more retractions each, suggesting that these withdrawals are the result of deliberate misconduct rather than honest mistakes (Brainard, 2018 ). Similarly, Grieneisen and Zhang’s ( 2012 ) results show that, of the 15 researchers with the highest number of withdrawn articles, nine had more than 20 retractions each, and 13 researchers were responsible for 391, or 54% of the total 725 retractions due to scientific misconduct. The main reoffenders are collectively responsible for 52% of the world’s retractions due to alleged misconduct in research (Grieneisen & Zhang, 2012 ). Tang et al. ( 2020 ), who analyzed 2,087 retractions in the WoS in the period from 1978 to 2013, also listed the top ten reoffenders and showed that together these authors were responsible for 226 articles identified, or approximately 11% of the sample. Nine of the ten reoffenders are researchers from the countries with the highest number of retractions (Japan, Germany and the US), and all ten are men.

Despite these observations, publications from authors linked to elite universities or World Class Universities (WCUs) are less prone to retraction, particularly in relation to those due to falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism (Tang et al., 2020 ). WCUs are considered leaders in a range of criteria, including: international research and cited works; high incidence of researchers who are references in their fields; capacity to drive innovative ideas; and strong ability to recruit talent and attract financial resources or donations (Altbach & Salmi, 2011 ; Cheng et al., 2014 ; Deem et al., 2008 ; Lee, 2013 ). Notably, several countries have begun to modify their research funding policies (Li, 2012 ) to focus on the development of “global universities” (Deem, 2008 ; Doğan & Al, 2019 ). In addition to ensuring WCU status, the better a university’s position in the global rankings, the greater the visibility of the institution (Altbach & Hazelkorn, 2017 ; Lee, 2013 ) and the greater the public and private funding (Marginson, 2017 ). According to Altbach and Salmi ( 2011 ), WCUs are directly linked to international university rankings.

Global rankings are evaluative systems that have begun to bring about important changes in universities in recent decades (Altbach & Hazelkorn, 2017 ; Morris, 2011 ). Among the currently published global rankings, the most well-known worldwide is the Times Higher Education World University ranking (THE-WU) (Pilatti & Cechin, 2018 ), which is the result of a partnership between the Times Higher Education and Thomson Reuters. It evaluates indicators of teaching, research, citations, international profile and industry income, and is one of the most complete in terms of assessment (Moed, 2017 ).

In analyzing the impact of retractions on the scientific community and consequently on WCUs, the present study aims to outline the profile of scientific retractions published in journals indexed in the WoS from 2010 to 2019, from the 20 best WCUs according to the global ranking classification of the THE 2020.

The in-depth examination of scientific retractions by researchers linked to WCUs was motivated by two reasons. First, although previous studies provide valuable insights and evidence regarding retractions, none have examined in detail the retractions published by researchers linked to WCUs. Secondly, of the 20 WCUs selected, 14 are North American, with the US having the highest rate of publication and retraction globally (He, 2013 ), and similar percentages of articles published and retracted in relation to the global total, 32.3% and 29.8% respectively (Tang et al., 2020 ).

Materials and methods

The Times Higher Education World University Ranking 2020 assessed a total of 1,400 universities in 92 countries. The indicators analyzed in the assessment are presented in Table 1 . The ranking is available online for free on the THE website under the ‘Rankings’ tab by selecting ‘World University Rankings 2020′. All universities and countries that the ranking assessed were considered, but only the top 20 ranked universities were included in the present study.

To define our sample of scientific retractions published in the Web of Science database (WoS) from 2010 to 2019, we first searched for documents with the following words using the Boolean operator ‘OR’: retracted, retraction, withdrawal, and redress. As such, the following type of documents were selected: retracted publication, retraction, and correction. Then, each university was selected in the category ‘organization’ to identify retractions affiliated with each university. This process was repeated individually for all 20 selected universities. The research was carried out in May 2020.

After the search, a count was made of retractions published by each university, disregarding duplicate documents, those that were not found, and those that fell outside of the defined time interval. It should be noted that retractions with authors from two or more selected universities were considered only one retraction for each university. Subsequently, the number of articles published in the WoS between 2010 and 2019 from each university were identified to calculate the proportion of published articles versus retractions.

Considering the selected retractions, it was possible to analyze the particularities of the journals in terms of impact factor, number of retractions, language of publication, and whether the journal is a member of COPE. The research also verified whether the person responsible for the retraction (authors, editor, or both) had been identified, and the time period between the article's publication and retraction. The reasons for retraction were categorized according to COPE (2009) guidelines, as shown in Table 2 .

For the analysis of each variable, descriptive statistics (mean, frequency and/or percentage) were used. A spreadsheet was used to calculate the statistics. Complementarily, Pearson’s correlation coefficient (for parametric data) was performed between the variables THE ranking and rate of article retraction. As an evaluation parameter, a significance level lower than 0.05 ( p  < 0.05) was considered. For the magnitude of the relationship, we considered: weak correlation between 0.1 and 0.3; moderate between 0.4 and 0.6; and strong between 0.7 and 0.9.

In addition, a simple linear regression was used to verify the prediction between the variables THE ranking and retraction rate. The correlation has no predictive power, so in this case, a regression test was chosen.

Characterization of universities

The 20 best universities as classified by THE 2020 were selected and are listed in Table 3 , together with information about the country, year of foundation, and type of institution (public/private).

After the selection of universities, the process to identify retractions began, which provided a total of 397 retractions. Of these, nine did not occur within the established period, 53 were duplicates, and five were not found. Therefore, a total of 330 retractions were analyzed (period between 2010 and 2019).

Number of retractions, language of publication/retraction, COPE affiliation

The 330 retractions were published between 2010 and 2019 and correspond to research published between 1997 and 2019 in journals with JCR between 0 and 70.67. Articles were published predominantly in English (96.67%; n  = 330) and in periodicals affiliated to COPE (79.39%), as shown in Figs. 1 and 2 .

Source : Authors (2020)

Language of journal publications.

Journals affiliated with COPE.

During the evaluated period, 1.52% of the articles had up to three retractions and 8.18% of the articles had up to two retractions. The 20 best ranked WCUs had an average (µ) of 16.50 ± 12.90 retractions during the analyzed period.

Number of articles published, country of origin, number of retractions by university, and percentage of retractions by university

Together, the analyzed universities published a total of 1,535,266 articles, of which 330 were retracted, for a retraction rate of 0.021%. Table 4 shows the retraction rate relative to the total number of publications.

Duke University showed the highest percentage of retraction (0.056%), followed by Cornell University (0.037%), both of which occupy the last two positions of the ranking of the selected WCUs (rank of 20 and 19, respectively).

As for the country of origin, 72.12% were from the US, 17.58% from the United Kingdom, 7.88% from Canada, and 2.42% from Switzerland.

Considering the distribution of retractions per university in the period from 2010 to 2019, based on the total number of publications indexed in the WoS database and without considering all publications, Harvard University had the largest number of retraction records among the institutions evaluated (17.87%). Duke University occupied the second position (10.30%), while California Institute of Technology presented the lowest number of retractions (0.61%).

Journal in which the retraction was published

Figure  3 shows the distribution of retractions per journal in the period from 2010 to 2019. Nature (5.15%) published the most retractions during the study period, followed by the Journal of Clinical Investigation (3.33%). The evaluated journals presented an average of 1.58 ± 1.65 retractions in the period evaluated.

Distribution of retractions per Journal.

Reason for retraction, time between the year of publication and retraction, and person responsible

Figure  4 shows the distribution based on reason for retraction, while Fig.  5 a–c shows the year of publication of the article, the year of retraction, and the time between publication and retraction. The main reason to retract an article was data results (66.4%), which includes falsification, fabrication, and unreliable results.

Distribution by type of retraction.

Year of publication of the paper ( a ), year of retractation( b ), and time between publication and retraction in years ( c ).

On average, the evaluated universities published 16.5 ± 15.13 articles per year that later suffered retractions, representing a rate of 0.02 ± 0.01% of publications. Most of the articles retracted were published in 2011 (14.55%) (Fig.  5 a).

An average of 33 ± 14.50 retractions were published per year from 2010 to 2019, with the highest concentration in 2019 (16.67%) (Fig.  5 b). The retractions occur on average 3.20 ± 3.11 years after initial publication and most frequently at a shorter interval of two years (7.07%) (Fig.  5 c).

Relationship between impact factor and retractions

Figure  6 shows the relationship between the impact factor (based on the years 2018 and 2019) and retractions. Journals with a Journal Citation Report (JCR) between 3 and 3.99 had 16.36% (2019) and 13.94% (2018) of retractions, and journals with JCR between 10 and 19.99 had 14.85% (2019) and 13.03% (2018) of retractions.

Distribution of retractions by journal citation report (JCR, 2018 and 2019). Source : Authors (2020)

Person responsible for the retraction

Figure  7 shows the person responsible for the retractions. In almost half of the retractions (43.64% of the cases), the author was listed as responsible.

Distribution based on those responsible for retraction.

Correlation and regression

Through Pearson's correlation coefficient, significant ( p  = 0.011) and moderate ( r  = 0.54) correlation was found between THE ranking and retraction rate of articles published by the analyzed universities. Figure  8 shows the Linear Regression test between retraction ratio % and THE ranking.

Linear regression: retraction ratio % x journal ranking (THE 2020).

We found that university rank has a predictive capacity of 30.51% of the variability of the article retraction rate (dependent variable). Thus, it is likely that the higher the rank, the lower the retraction rate.

This study provides a profile of retractions of scientific articles indexed in the Web of Science database from the 20 best WCUs based on the THE 2020 ranking. Harvard University published the most scientific articles and had the most retractions. However, if we consider the retraction rate, it appears that the better the university's rank, the lower the retraction rate. The country with the highest retraction incidence was the US (72.92%), which is also the country with the largest number of universities that are considered world-class (14). The magazine with the most retracted publications was Nature . Most articles are written in English (96.67%) and published in COPE member journals (79.39%). The most common reason for retraction was data results (66.4%). Retraction took an average of 3.2 years, and mainly authors are responsible for retractions (43.64%).

On average, the studied institutions retracted 0.021% of the published work. The institution with the lowest incidence was California Institute of Technology with 0.006% and the greatest incidence was Duke University at 0.056%. The average retraction rate found herein is high when compared to the study by Almeida et al. ( 2016 ), who obtained an average of 0.005% for retractions in the SciElo and LILACS databases, and also when compared to studies on specific areas of research: 0.008% for engineering (Rubbo, Helmann, et al., 2019 ); 0.014% for biology and medicine; 0.014% for multidisciplinary studies; 0.006% for other sciences; 0.002% for social sciences; and 0.001% for arts and humanities (Lu et al., 2013 ).

The predominant reason for retraction was data results (66.4%) followed by unethical research (20.0%). Corroborating the results of this study, Brainard ( 2018 ), who evaluated retractions between 1997 and 2015, pointed out that most retractions involved scientific fraud (fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism), in addition to false peer review. The study by Ajiferuke and Adekannbi ( 2020 ) pointed out that articles in the library and information sciences are withdrawn mainly due to plagiarism, duplication, non-reproducible results, and errors in data. Within anesthesiology, Nair et al. ( 2020 ) identified that the most common motive for withdrawals was fraud (49.4%), followed by lack of appropriate ethical approval (28%). Fang et al. ( 2012 ), when analyzing 2,047 retractions indexed in PubMed in biomedicine and life sciences, identified the following main reasons for retraction: 43.4% for fraud or suspected fraud; 21.3% for errors; 14.2% for redundant research; and 9.8% for plagiarism. Madlock-Brown and Eichmann ( 2015 ) identified three main reasons for retraction: 31% error; 17% redundant publication; and 16% plagiarism. Resnik and Dinse ( 2013 ), when investigating 119 retractions published by the U.S. Office of Research Integrity between the years 1992 and 2011, identified that retractions were motivated by falsification (44.5%); fabrication and falsification (40.3%); only plagiarism (5.9%); only fabrication (4.2%); and all three types of unethical research (5%). Wager and Williams ( 2011 ) analyzed 312 retractions from the Medline database, and identified the following main reasons for retraction: 28% for error; 17% for redundant publication; 16% for plagiarism; and 11% for irreproducible results. Almeida et al. ( 2016 ) and Van Noorden ( 2011 ) identified in their studies that most retractions are due to plagiarism.

In China, Lei and Zhang ( 2018 ) analyzed bibliometric information from 834 WoS retractions showing that plagiarism, fraud, and false peer review explained three quarters of the published retractions. Most of these retractions corresponded to deliberate fraud, as demonstrated by retractions from reoffending authors. In the study by Van Leeuwen ( 2019 ), in almost 55% of the cases analyzed, intentional misconduct was the reason for the retraction, with regular errors related to 10% and negligence by the authors (issues of reproducibility, ethics, and authorship) implicated in about 11% of the retractions.

It should be noted that only 3.3% ( n  = 330) of the analyzed retractions did not provide a reason. The ambiguous and evasive description of some retraction notices can end up obscuring the motives (Brainard, 2018 ; Fang et al., 2012 ; Van Leeuwen & Luwel, 2014 ), and this is probably due to embarrassment on behalf of the authors or editors (Van Leeuwen & Luwel, 2014 ). The publication of a retraction is detrimental both to the authors’ academic careers (Van Noorden, 2011 ; Yadav et al., 2016 ; Zhang & Grieneisen, 2013 ) and to the journal, directly affecting its perceived reputation and reliability (Williams & Wager, 2013 ). However, a lack of clarity in relation to the reason for retraction is beneficial for neither the public perception of science nor the academic community itself (Van Leeuwen & Luwel, 2014 ).

In the present analysis, the average time between publication and retraction was 3.2 years. Longer average times were found by Dal-Ré and Ayuso ( 2019 ) of 4.6 and 5.1 years, but the results were not statistically significant, while a shorter period of two years was identified by Rubbo et al., ( 2019 ). According to Foo ( 2011 ), since the year 2000, the elapsed time between publication and withdrawal of an article has decreased.

With regard to journals, most publish in English (96.67%) and are members of COPE (79.39%), which is consistent with the results found by Rubbo et al., ( 2019 ), who identified that 94% of journals publish predominantly in English and 84.87% are affiliated with COPE. In addition, 76.55% of the journals had only one incidence of retraction and 11% had two. These results similar to those reported by Steen ( 2011 ) and Rubbo et al., ( 2019 ) who found that approximately 68% of journals had only one incidence of retraction and 32% with two or more.

Regarding the impact factor, it was not possible to state that journals with a higher impact factor had a greater number of retractions. However, in evaluating the journals analyzed, Nature , with a JCR of 42.778, the fourth-best JCR of the journals analyzed, showed the highest number of retractions (5.15%), followed by the Journal of Clinical Investigation , with a JCR of 11.864 and 3.33% of retractions. In a previous study, Rubbo et al., ( 2019 ) found that journals with a higher impact factor had a higher incidence of retraction. Meanwhile, Furman et al. ( 2012 ) and Lei and Zhang ( 2018 ) argue that journals with a lower impact factor are more likely to retract articles.

Resnik ( 2015 ) analyzed the retraction policies of 147 leading journals classified by impact factor and concluded that only 65% of the journals had retraction policies. Among these, 94% adhered to the policy that allows editors to withdraw articles without the authors’ consent.

Both the editors and reviewers have the responsibility to avoid the publication of an article with misconduct (Carafoli, 2015 ; Fox, 1994 ; Mojon-Azzi & Mojon, 2004 ; Stroebe et al., 2012 ). However, the editor is responsible for the final deliberation on the retraction of an article (Atwater, 2014 ; Wager et al., 2010 ; Williams & Wager, 2013 ). This may also be the responsibility of the author(s) or both authors and editors, even when one or all of the authors refuse to do so (Wager et al., 2010 ). The term ‘heroic act’ refers to retractions requested by the authors themselves (Alberts et al., 2015 ), which in the present study was the motivation for withdrawal of most of the analyzed retractions (43.64%). These results are consistent with the work by Vuong ( 2020 ), who identified an increase in the number of authors responsible for retractions in the period between 2017 and 2018. This highlights an increasing concern with the reputation of science and a commitment to protect the quality of scientific literature. On the other hand, Vuong ( 2020 ), looking at 2,046 articles retracted between 1975 and 2019 in Retraction Watch, showed that 15% of retractions are initiated by the authors and 53% do not specify who was responsible for the withdrawal. A smaller number was found in the present study, in which only 25% did not identify the person responsible for the retraction, while Rubbo et al. ( 2019 ) showed that 64.29% of the retractions were initiated by the editors, 17.23% did not identify the person responsible, 12.18% were requested by the authors, and 6.3% by both the authors and editors.

Strengthening ethical conduct and establishing more severe punishments is a challenge in the scientific community, as it is a complex and self-regulating environment where various actors interact in a range of ways, including as competitors, researchers, and reviewers (Lacetera & Zirulia, 2011 ). In this environment, retraction is seen as a paradox. For the research group the consequences can include funding restrictions and dismissals; for the authors their names and reputations can be compromised; and for the journals they can experience a loss of high quality research and indexation on prominent databases (Hu et al., 2019 ). Thus, the stigma associated with retraction inhibits efforts to protect the integrity of scientific literature (Brainard, 2018 ; Grieneisen & Zhang, 2012 ; Vuong, 2020 ). Rather than being treated as means of disqualifying research, retractions should be seen as an academic tool for correction, improving the legitimacy of research citations, which consider retractions and citations of retracted articles (Dobránszki & Silva, 2019 ).

To help decrease the number of fraudulent studies, the US National Academy of Sciences has submitted five reports on scientific misconduct over the past 28 years. All reports presented the same recommendations, including: mandatory training in good research practices; improvements in the science reward system and stricter penalties; protecting whistleblowers (Kornfeld, 2018 ; Kornfeld & Titus, 2017 ); education in integrity and scientific ethics (Mumford et al., 2008 ); improved training in logic, probability and statistics; establishment of uniform and transparent guidelines for retraction notices; changes in the peer review system and severe sanctions (Brainard, 2018 ; Fanelli et al., 2015 ; Fang et al., 2012 ; Lei & Zhang, 2018 ; Tang, 2019 ); in addition to easing the competitive pressure among scientists (Lacetera & Zirulia, 2011 ). Nevertheless, the academy remains without an effective action plan to address the serious problems of “fabrication (lying), falsification (cheating), and plagiarism (stealing) that continue to plague science” (Kornfeld, 2018 , p. 1103).

Obviously, researchers and editors worldwide are being encouraged to establish regulations and structures to deal with cases of misconduct (Andersen & Wray, 2019 ; Fanelli et al., 2015 ; Resnik et al., 2015 ), due to the damage that erroneous research results can cause, including leading other researchers toward unproductive lines of investigation or the unfair distribution of resources (Dobránszki & Silva, 2019 ; Fang & Casadevall, 2011 ). However, joint efforts are still needed to improve mechanisms and increase researchers’ awareness of misconduct (Brainard, 2018 ; Grieneisen & Zhang, 2012 ).

Honesty and integrity in research are associated with sociological and psychological factors, such as: specific policies and cultural and socioeconomic factors; peer influence; pressure to publish; and early-career reputation, where younger scientists are more often implicated in retractions (Fanelli et al. 2015 ). On the other hand, Lacetera and Zirulia ( 2011 ) argue that researchers with a better reputation are more likely to publish a fraudulent article but are less likely to be identified. Another explanation may be associated with the fact that researchers from universities that are considered world-class have a high degree of concern for their reputation and the reputation of their institutions (Fanelli et al., 2015 ; Lacetera & Zirulia, 2011 ).

The results herein suggest that universities with a better position in the THE ranking have a lower rate of retraction of scientific articles. The finding corroborates the results of Tang et al. ( 2020 ) who also analyzed the WoS and demonstrated that publications by authors from the most prominent universities in the world are less prone to retraction, particularly in relation to falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism. The authors found that only one in five (22.6% of the retracted articles) involved at least one author from a top 100 ranked university. The chances of an article with at least one author from a top 100 ranked university being retracted is 23% lower compared to an article without such an author. We can infer that there is a stronger tendency among elite global universities to inhibit retractions. Meanwhile, the time between publishing and retraction for an article which involves researchers from WCUs is generally short (Tang et al., 2020 ). This may be because research by leading scientists, to a large extent, is widely accessed and receives greater scrutiny. However, in the present study, which evaluated only WCUs, an average retraction time of 3.2 years was identified, a period that can be considered long, given the potential negative impacts of the scientific errors.

Considering that WCUs are universities that excel in research and have a flexible and effective financing system, by attracting investors or receiving donations from graduates and private institutions (Altbach, 2004 ), retractions can have an even more harmful impact. This relationship between global rankings and retractions, although inconvenient for WCUs, could be a good reason to hold universities responsible for research fraud, clearly disclosing the findings and penalizing the culprits (Hu et al., 2019 ; Tang et al., 2020 ; Xin, 2009 ). The rankings that encourage global competitiveness, by attracting talent and funding and stimulating excellence and productivity in research and citations, may play a significant role in the academy by promoting specific programs or actions that monitor scientific misconduct in universities (Shin, 2013 ).

The present study had some limitations. First, the research was carried out only on research published in the Web of Science database. Second, we chose the top 20 universities as ranked by THE. Third, the period of time between publication and retraction was treated in years, disregarding months. Fourth, the reasons for the retractions were restricted to those indicated in the COPE guidelines. Finally, we did not identify whether universities and journals employ any type of measures to prohibit unethical behavior in research. One area of future research is examining the link between prolific authors and WCUs.

The results show that a better the position in the THE ranking correlates with a lower rate of retraction, since Duke University (20th position) appears with the highest percentage of retraction (0.056%). However, Harvard University presented the greatest number of records of retraction among the institutions evaluated (17.88%), while California Institute of Technology presented the lowest (0.61%). The journal that most published retractions was Nature . Most of the articles published are written in English (96.67%), in journals that are members of COPE (79.39%). In addition, the main reason for retraction was data results, which represented 66.4% of the retractions.

The study established a relationship between WCUs that are deeply interested in high-impact research, which requires strategic and increasingly competitive funding, and ethical conduct in research, which today is monitored through scientific retractions. This relationship is pertinent as WCU status is achieved not only by the productivity of research, but by the quality of research and its contributions to society.

Data availability

We authors declare the total availability of data from our research.

Ajiferuke, I., & Adekannbi, J. O. (2020). Correction and retraction practices in library and information science journals. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 52 (1), 169–183.

Article   Google Scholar  

Alberts, B., Cicerone, R. J., Fienberg, S. E., Kamb, A., McNutt, M., Nerem, R. M., & Zuber, M. T. (2015). Self-correction in science at work. Science, 348 (6242), 1420–1422.

Altbach, P. (2004). The costs and benefits of world-class universities. Academe, 90 (1), 20–23.

Altbach, P. G., & Hazelkorn, E. (2017). Pursuing rankings in the age of massification: For most—forget about it. International Higher Education, 89 , 8–10.

Google Scholar  

Altbach, P. G., & Salmi, J. (Eds.). (2011). The road to academic excellence: The making of world-class research universities.

Amorim, L. (2011). Abaixo a má conduta na ciência. Ciência hoje . http://www.cienciahoje.org.br/noticia/v/ler/id/1647/n/abaixo_a_ma_conduta_na_ciencia .

Andersen, L. E., & Wray, K. B. (2019). Detecting errors that result in retractions. Social Studies of Science, 49 (6), 942–954.

Atwater, L. E., Mumford, M. D., Schriesheim, C. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (2014). Retraction of leadership articles: Causes and prevention. The Leadership Quarterly, 25 (6), 1174–1180.

Bechhoefer, J. (2007). Plagiarism: Text-matching program offers an answer. Nature, 449 (7163), 658–658.

Berlinck, R. G. (2011). The academic plagiarism and its punishments - A review. Revista Brasileira de Farmacognosia, 21 (3), 365–372.

Bosch, X., Hernandez, C., Pericas, J. M., Doti, P., & Marušić, A. (2012). Misconduct policies in high impact biomedical journals. PLoS ONE, 7 (12), e51928.

Boseley, S. & Davey, M. (2020, Jun 4). Covid-19: Lancet retracts paper that halted hydroxychloroquine trials. The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/04/covid-19-lancet-retracts-paper-that-halted-hydroxychloroquine-trials

Brainard, J. (2018). Rethinking retractions. Science, 362(6413), 390–393. http: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.362.6413.390

Broome, M. E. (2004). Self-plagiarism: Oxymoron, fair use, or scientific misconduct? Nursing Outlook, 52 (6), 273–274.

Browman, H. (2019). Retraction Guidelines 2019 Update . COPE European Seminar 2019, Leiden, Netherlands. https://publicationethics.org/files/Retraction%20Guidelines%20presentation_Browman.pdf .

Carafoli, E. (2015). Scientific misconduct: The dark side of science. Rendiconti Lincei, 26 (3), 369–382.

Cheng, Y., Wang, Q., & Liu, N. C. (2014). How world-class universities affect global higher education. In Y. Cheng, Q. Wang, & N. C. Liu (Eds.), How world-class universities affect global higher education. (pp. 1–10). Springer: Rotterdam.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Cokol, M., Iossifov, I., Rodriguez-Esteban, R., & Rzhetsky, A. (2007). How many scientific papers should be retracted? EMBO reports, 8 (5), 422–423.

COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics). (2020). Retraction Guidelines. https://publicationethics.org/retraction-guidelines

Dal-Ré, R., & Ayuso, C. (2019). Reasons for and time to retraction of genetics articles published between 1970 and 2018. Journal of Medical Genetics, 56 (11), 734–740.

de Almeida, R. M. V. R., Rocha, K. A., Catelani, F., Fontes-Pereira, A. J., & Vasconcelos, S. M. R. (2016). Plagiarism allegations account for most retractions in major Latin American/Caribbean databases. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22 (5), 1447–1456.

Deem, R., Mok, K. H., & Lucas, L. (2008). Transforming higher education in whose image? Exploring the concept of the ‘world-class’ university in Europe and Asia. Higher Education Policy, 21 (1), 83–97.

Dobránszki, J., & da Silva, J. A. T. (2019). Corrective factors for author-and journal-based metrics impacted by citations to accommodate for retractions. Scientometrics, 121 (1), 387–398.

Doğan, G., & Al, U. (2019). Is it possible to rank universities using fewer indicators? A study on five international university rankings. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 71 (1), 18–37.

Elliott, T. L., Marquis, L. M., & Neal, C. S. (2013). Business ethics perspectives: Faculty plagiarism and fraud. Journal of Business Ethics, 112 (1), 91–99.

Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE, 4 (5), e5738.

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.

Fang, F. C., & Casadevall, A. (2011). Retracted science and the retraction index. Infection and Immunity, 79 (10), 3855–3859.

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.

Fang, F. C., Bennett, J. W., & Casadevall, A. (2013). Males are overrepresented among life science researchers committing scientific misconduct. MBio, 4 (1), e00640-e712.

Fennell, C. (2019). Retractions, a publisher‘s perspective: Daily realities & future challenges. COPE European Seminar 2019, Leiden, Netherlands. https://publicationethics.org/files/CFennell_COPE_Leiden.pdf

Foo, J. Y. A. (2011). A retrospective analysis of the trend of retracted publications in the field of biomedical and life sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17 (3), 459–468.

Fox, M. F. (1994). Scientific misconduct and editorial and peer review processes. The Journal of Higher Education, 65 (3), 298–309.

Furman, J. L., Jensen, K., & Murray, F. (2012). Governing knowledge in the scientific community: Exploring the role of retractions in biomedicine. Research Policy, 41 (2), 276–290.

Gasparyan, A. Y., Ayvazyan, L., Akazhanov, N. A., & Kitas, G. D. (2014). Self-correction in biomedical publications and the scientific impact. Croatian Medical Journal, 55 (1), 61.

Grieneisen, M. L., & Zhang, M. (2012). A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature. PLoS ONE, 7 (10), e44118.

He, T. (2013). Retraction of global scientific publications from 2001 to 2010. Scientometrics, 96 (2), 555–561.

Hu, G., Yang, Y., & Tang, L. (2019). Retraction and research integrity education in China. Science and Engineering Ethics, 25 (1), 325–326.

Kornfeld, D. S. (2018). It’s time for action on research misconduct. Academic Medicine, 93 (8), 1103.

Kornfeld, D. S., & Titus, S. L. (2017). More research won’t crack misconduct. Nature, 548 (7665), 31–31.

Lacetera, N., & Zirulia, L. (2011). The economics of scientific misconduct. The Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 27 (3), 568–603.

Lee, J. (2013). Creating world-class universities: Implications for developing countries. Prospects, 43 (2), 233–249.

Lei, L., & Zhang, Y. (2018). Lack of improvement in scientific integrity: An analysis of WoS retractions by Chinese researchers (1997–2016). Science and Engineering Ethics, 24 (5), 1409–1420.

Li, J. (2012). World-class higher education and the emerging Chinese model of the university. Prospects, 42 (3), 319–339.

Lu, S. F., Jin, G. Z., Uzzi, B., & Jones, B. (2013). The retraction penalty: Evidence from the Web of science. Scientific Reports, 3 , 3146.

Madlock-Brown, C., & Eichmann, D. (2015). The (lack of) impact of retraction on citation networks. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21 (1), 127–137.

Marginson, S. (2017). Do rankings drive better performance? International Higher Education , 89 , 6–8.

Moed, H. F. (2017). A critical comparative analysis of five world university rankings. Scientometrics, 110 (2), 967–990.

Mojon-Azzi, S. M., & Mojon, D. S. (2004). Scientific misconduct: from salami slicing to data fabrication. Ophthalmic research, 36 (1), 1–3.

Mongeon, P., & Larivière, V. (2016). Costly collaborations: The impact of scientific fraud on co-authors’ careers. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67 (3), 535–542.

Morris, H. (2011). Rankings and the reshaping of higher education: the battle for world class excellence. Studies in Higher Education, 36 (6), 741–742.

Mumford, M. D., Connelly, S., Brown, R. P., Murphy, S. T., Hill, J. H., Antes, A. L., & Devenport, L. D. (2008). A sensemaking approach to ethics training for scientists: Preliminary evidence of training effectiveness. Ethics & Behavior, 18 (4), 315–339.

Nair, S., Yean, C., Yoo, J., Leff, J., Delphin, E., & Adams, D. C. (2020). Reasons for article retraction in anesthesiology: A comprehensive analysis. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d’anesthésie, 67 (1), 57–63.

Pilatti, L. A., & Cechin, M. R. (2018). Perfil das universidades brasileiras de e com potencial de classe mundial. Avaliação, 23 (1), 75–103.

Resnik, D. B., & Dinse, G. E. (2013). Scientific retractions and corrections related to misconduct findings. Journal of Medical Ethics, 39 , 46–50.

Resnik, D. B., Wager, E., & Kissling, G. E. (2015). Retraction policies of top scientific journals ranked by impact factor. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 103 (3), 136.

Rubbo, P., Helmann, C. L., Bilynkievycz dos Santos, C., & Pilatti, L. A. (2019a). Retractions in the engineering field: A study on the web of science database. Ethics & Behavior, 29 (2), 141–155.

Rubbo, P., Pilatti, L. A., & Picinin, C. T. (2019b). Citation of retracted articles in engineering: A study of the Web of Science database. Ethics & Behavior, 29 (8), 661–679.

Russo, M. (2014). Ética e integridade na ciência: da responsabilidade do cientista a responsabilidade coletiva. Estudos Avançados, 28 (80), 189–198.

Sharma, B. B., & Singh, V. (2011). Ethics in writing: Learning to stay away from plagiarism and scientific misconduct. Lung India, 28 (2), 148–150.

Shin, J. C. (2013). The World-Class University: Concept and Policy Initiatives. In J. Shin & B. Kehm (Eds.), Institutionalization of World-Class University in Global Competition. (pp. 17–32). Springer: Dordrecht.

Silva, J. A. T., & Dobránszki, J. (2017). Notices and policies for retractions, expressions of concern, errata and corrigenda: Their importance, content, and context. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23 (2), 521–554.

Sox, H. C., & Rennie, D. (2006). Research misconduct, retraction, and cleansing the medical literature: lessons from the Poehlman case. Annals of Internal Medicine, 144 (8), 609–613.

Steen, R. G. (2011). Retractions in the scientific literature: Is the incidence of research fraud increasing? Journal of Medical Ethics, 37 , 249–253.

Steen, R. G., Casadevall, A., & Fang, F. C. (2013). Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? PLoS ONE, 8 (7), e68397.

Stroebe, W., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2012). Scientific misconduct and the myth of selfcorrection in science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7 (6), 670–688.

Tang, L. (2019). Five ways China must cultivate research integrity. Nature, 575 , 589–591.

Tang, L., Hu, G., Sui, Y., Yang, Y., & Cao, C. (2020). Retraction: The “Other Face” of research collaboration? Science and Engineering Ethics, 26 , 1681–1708.

Thomas, J. R., Nelson, J. K., & Silverman, S. J. (2002). Métodos de Pesquisa em Atividade Física. Artemed Editora.

Van Leeuwen, T. (2019). Analysis of retracted papers: Initiators and reasons for retraction. COPE European Seminar 2019, Leiden, Netherlands.

Van Noorden, R. (2011). Science publishing: The trouble with retractions. Nature, 478 (7367), 26–28.

Van Leeuwen T. N. & Luwel, M. (2014). An in-depth analysis of papers retracted in the Web of Science. In E. Noyons (Ed.), “ Context Counts: Pathways to Master Big and Little Data”. Proceedings of the science and technology indicators conference 2014 Leiden (pp. 337–344). Universiteit Leiden.

Vuong, Q. H. (2020). The limitations of retraction notices and the heroic acts of authors who correct the scholarly record: An analysis of retractions of papers published from 1975 to 2019. Learned Publishing, 33 , 119–130.

Vuong, Q. H., La, V. P., Hồ, M. T., Vuong, T. T., & Ho, M. T. (2020). Characteristics of retracted articles based on retraction data from online sources through February 2019. Science Editing, 7 (1), 34–44.

Wager, E., & Williams, P. (2011). Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988–2008. Journal of Medical Ethics, 37 (9), 567–570.

Wager, E., Barbour, V., Yentis, S., & Kleinert, S. (2010). Retractions: Guidance from the committee on publication ethics (COPE). International Journal of Polymer Analysis and Characterization, 15 (1), 2–6.

Williams, P., & Wager, E. (2013). Exploring why and how journal editors retract articles: Findings from a qualitative study. Science and Engineering Ethics , 19 (1), 1–11.

Xin, H. (2009). Retractions put spotlight on China’s part-time professor system. Science, 323 (5919), 1280–1281.

Yadav, S., Rawal, G., & Baxi, M. (2016). Plagiarism-a serious scientific misconduct. International Journal of Health Science and Research, 6 (2), 364–366.

Zhang, M., & Grieneisen, M. L. (2013). The impact of misconduct on the published medical and non-medical literature, and the news media. Scientometrics, 96 (2), 573–587.

Download references

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Federal University of Technology – Paraná (UTFPR), Ponta Grossa, Brazil

Caroline Lievore, Priscila Rubbo, Claudia Tânia Picinin & Luiz Alberto Pilatti

State University of Ponta Grossa (UEPG), Ponta Grossa, Brazil

Celso Biynkievycz dos Santos

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Caroline Lievore .

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest.

The author declares that they have no competing of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Lievore, C., Rubbo, P., dos Santos, C.B. et al. Research ethics: a profile of retractions from world class universities. Scientometrics 126 , 6871–6889 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03987-y

Download citation

Received : 20 November 2020

Accepted : 01 April 2021

Published : 23 May 2021

Issue Date : August 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03987-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Research Anti-ethics
• World Class Universities
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

•   Institutional Repository @University of Calicut

Institutional Repository

This repository is aimed to collect, preserve and distribute the research output of the members of the University of Calicut. This is an open access system hosted and managed by the University Library.

Departments and Research Centers

Select a Department to browse its collections.

Recently Added

Investigation of plasmonic properties in oxide and nitride thin films/ , cbcss2019 - ma english first semester , systematic studies on the clavarioid fungi (agaricomycetes, basidiomycota) of kerala , cbcss2014 - ma malayalam final year , cbcss2019 - ma malayalam fourth semester .

• connect with us
• 1800-572-9877
• [email protected]
• We’re on your favourite socials!

Frequently Search

Couldn’t find the answer? Post your query here

• Others Articles

Calcutta University Question Papers: PDF Download

Updated On: March 13, 2024 08:14 pm IST

Calcutta University Question Papers: Highlights

Calcutta university question papers: download links, calcutta university subject wise syllabus: pdf download, how to use calcutta university question papers effectively.

Calcutta University Question Papers: Established back in 1857, the University of Calcutta , commonly known as Calcutta University, stands as one of India's oldest and most esteemed institutions for higher education. It boasts a rich history of academic excellence and offers a diverse range of undergraduate and postgraduate programs spanning various fields of study. However, for prospective students, navigating through these programs and comprehending the curriculum can pose a significant challenge.

This article aims to be a helpful guide for students looking for information on Calcutta University question papers. By granting access to previous exam papers, we aim to provide you with valuable insights into the structure, question formats, and subject matter covered in specific courses. This article will not only help aspirants in devising an effective exam preparation strategy but also enable them to acquaint themselves with the curriculum and educational objectives of their selected program at Calcutta University. By leveraging the insights gained from Calcutta University question papers, students can approach their studies with greater confidence, ensuring a more informed and effective learning experience.

The following table highlights key details about Calcutta University question papers. 

Here is a compilation of links to different Calcutta University question papers of different courses and subjects in this table. Go through these links, along with the study materials given on the official university and/or college websites for the latest and most relevant question papers tailored to your upcoming exams at Calcutta University.

Calcutta University Question Papers: 1st Semester

Calcutta university question papers: 3rd semester.

Exploring your preferred academic discipline demands a solid understanding of the course content. In this table, you will find links to the relevant PDFs containing the most recent subject-specific syllabus presented by Calcutta University. If you are seeking Calcutta University question papers, this resource is a valuable asset to enhance your understanding of the curriculum.

Here's how to leverage the Calcutta University question papers effectively for your future exam success:

• Understanding the Format and Style of Questions: Examine previous question papers to grasp the typical exam structure. Are there a variety of question types like multiple-choice, short answers, and essays? Take note of the number of questions allocated for each section.
• Identifying Frequently Tested Topics: Study and solve the past papers to find the key focus areas of the curriculum. Recognize recurring topics and questions that consistently appear in previous years' question papers.
• Crafting Effective Exam-Taking Strategies: Enhance your exam performance by practising answering questions within set time limits, replicating the actual exam scenario. Analyzing Calcutta University question papers will provide insights into time allocation for each section. Utilize past papers to refine your time management skills, prioritizing high-value questions. This practice prepares you to tackle the most crucial aspects of the exam first.
• Fine-Tuning Your Study Approach: Solve past papers to identify potential problematic or challenging areas for students. Adjust your study focus accordingly, ensuring thorough preparation for all possible topics.

For additional information about your preferred colleges and universities, stay connected with CollegeDekho !

Are you feeling lost and unsure about what career path to take after completing 12th standard?

Say goodbye to confusion and hello to a bright future!

Calcutta University question papers usually include a variety of question styles, depending on the specific program and course. These can range from multiple-choice questions to quick assessments of factual knowledge, short-answer questions to assess specific concepts, and essay questions designed for in-depth analysis and the application of critical thinking skills. The format and content of the questions vary, catering to the diverse nature of the subjects offered by the university.

You can use Calcutta University's past year question papers as a valuable tool to understand the exam structure, question formats, and time limitations. They will help you to uncover commonly examined subjects to concentrate your efforts on essential topics. Enhance your exam readiness by practicing timed questions, and refining your ability to tackle exams efficiently. By incorporating Calcutta University question papers into your preparation, you will not only boost your confidence but also tailor your approach for success in Calcutta University exams. 

You can find Calcutta University question papers right here on this page. However, there isn't a centralized download page provided by the University. You can also explore other websites or other educational platforms to find previous papers related to your course. Prior to using them for your studies, make sure to verify the source and the year of the question papers. Remember, it's essential to check the credibility and publication year of the papers before incorporating them into your study routine. 

To access Calcutta University question papers in PDF format, follow these simple steps: - Visit the official website at www.caluniv.ac.in or locate the previous papers link provided on this page. - Look for the "Online Calcutta University Question Paper" link. - Once found, select your specific subject from the available options. - Choose your semester name to narrow down the search. - Download the desired question paper in PDF format. - After downloading, open the file and save it to your disk for easy access.

Obtaining the Calcutta University Question Papers for the past 10 or 5 years of Semester Exams in both Honours and General Courses has become a significant pursuit for students. Let's explore the reasons behind this trend. Students primarily seek previous years' question papers for the following purposes: - Identifying common questions that might appear in the upcoming semester exams, whether this year or shortly. - Some students aim to discover hints or suggestions within the questions, hoping to gain insights into the content likely to be covered in the upcoming exams. - Students also seek to gauge the expected standard of the Calcutta University Question Papers to better prepare for the exam.

Was this article helpful?

Be the first to know.

Get Access to Latest Updates

Related Questions

Application forme relesing date, ba ma admission ho rahe hai.

Hello Pawan,

The applications for admission are open for the M.A programme at MMH College Ghaziabad , for the session 2023-24. You have to apply through the official website from the section ‘Apply for PG Admission’. There you have to register yourself by providing the required details. The last application date is August 31, 2023. You can also contact the college using the phone number: (0120)-4575241 or by email address: [email protected] or [email protected], for further information.

Hope this was helpful. Feel free to ask for any more queries.

Admission date for forestry 2023?

Dear student, Central Agricultural University : College of Horticulture & Forestry admission dates have not  been released yet. However, admissions will begin soon.  You can reach out to us in case of any queries. For admission-related assistance, you can contact us on the helpline number of CollegeDekho 1800-572-9877 and speak to our counsellors directly or fill out the Common Application Form . Also, you can post detailed queries here and our counsellors will respond as soon as possible.

Do you have a question? Ask us.

Typical response between 24-48 hours

Get personalized response

Free of Cost

Access to community

Similar Articles

• Top 10 South Campus Colleges in Delhi University (DU): Popular Courses & Cutoff Trends
• Best Course Options After Scoring Below 50 Percent in 12th
• AP ICET 2024 Application Form Correction (Closed) - Direct Link, Dates, Categories, Detailed Instructions
• List of Fake Universities in India 2024 by UGC (New List)
• Top Institutes with 100% Job Placements in 2023-24: Highest Package, Key Recruiters
• List of Colleges in Delhi University: Affiliated/ Recognised Colleges in DU

Recent Articles

• Best Career Options After Qualifying UGC NET 2024
• What is a Good Score in UGC NET 2024?
• UPSC CSE 2025: Calendar (Out), Posts, Strategy, Registration & More
• How to Check KVS Admission List 2024-25 (1st, 2nd, 3rd): Direct Link, Latest Updates, Steps for Class 1 & Above
• JENPAS UG 2024 Ranking Methodology
• OJEE 2024 Marks Vs Rank Analysis
• What is a Good Score & Rank in OJEE 2024?
• List of Documents Required for OJEE 2024 Counselling
• ISB Hyderabad Direct Admission Process and How to Apply?
• SRM University vs VIT Vellore
• GTU Grading System 2024: Evaluation System & Calculation of SPI
• Police Rank List in India: All Police Posts with Badges, Stars & Salary
• Calicut University Grading System 2024: Course-Wise Grading
• Delhi University Courses: Stream-wise List of DU UG Courses
• List of Documents Required for EWS Certificate
• Class 12th Results 2024 - Check All Board Result, Direct Links Here
• CDS Salary 2024: Check Pay Scale, Salary Structure, Vacancies, and Other Benefits
• Best Certificate Courses in India in 2024: Career Options, Jobs & Salary
• PSTET 2024: Exam Date (Out), Notification, Application Form, Eligibility, Pattern, Syllabus, Admit Card, Result
• UPSC CDS Passing Marks 2024
• List of Animation Courses After 12th: Details, Fees, Scope, Jobs & Salary
• Tier 1 Colleges in India 2024: MBA, Engineering, Medical, Arts
• TSRJC CET 2024: Answer Key, Result, Merit List, Counselling & Latest Updates
• KVS Recruitment 2024: Apply Online, Dates, Application, Posts

Recent News

• ICSE Class 10 Toppers List 2024 (Available): State-wise best performing students, percentage scored
• Tamil Nadu HSC 12th Toppers List 2024 (Available): District-wise best performing students, marks
• ISC Class 12 Toppers List 2024 (Available): Stream-wise topper names, percentage
• School Assembly News Headlines for Tomorrow (7 May 2024): Top Stories, National, International and Sports
• ISC 12th Result Link 2024 Activated
• ICSE 10th Result Link 2024 Activated
• Tamil Nadu 12th Result Link 2024 Activated
• School Assembly News Headlines for 4 May 2024: Top Stories, National, International and Sports
• CBSE Result 2024 for 10th and 12th TODAY or NOT? Latest updates here
• CBSE Result 2024 NOT Anytime Soon: CBSE responds to rumours, confirms tentative date
• ICSE Result 2024 Fake Link Circulating on Social Media: Result not released
• MPSOS Class 10 and 12 Board Exam 2024 Dates Out
• HBSE 10th Result 2024 Expected Today: Results to be released at bseh.org.
• Tamil Nadu SSLC 10th Result Date 2024 Announced
• West Bengal Madhyamik 10th Result Link 2024 Activated
• Tamil Nadu HSC 12th Result Release Date 2024 Announced
• West Bengal 10th Madhyamik Toppers List 2024: District-wise topper names with marks
• School Assembly News Headlines for 2 May 2024: Top Stories, National, International and Sports
• TSRJC Result Expected Release Date 2024
• TS SSC Toppers List 2024 (Available): District-wise topper names, CGPA, marks
• School Assembly News Headlines for 1 May 2024: Top Stories, National, International, Sports
• UGC NET 2024 Exam Date: When will June cycle be conducted?
• TS SSC Supplementary Exam Date 2024 (RELEASED): Check important dates and process
• TS SSC Result Highlights 2024: Pass Percentage district and gender-wise
• TS SSC Results Link 2024 (Activated): Eenadu, Sakshi, Manabadi
• TSRJC Final Answer Key 2024 Released: Results expected soon
• TS SSC Results Release Time 2024
• School Assembly News Headlines for 30 April 2024: Top Stories, National, International, Sports
• Punjab 12th Result 2024 Release Date and Time
• UK Board Class 10 and 12 Results 2024 Release Date and Time

Trending Now

Subscribe to CollegeDekho News

• Select Stream Engineering Management Medical Commerce and Banking Information Technology Arts and Humanities Design Hotel Management Physical Education Science Media and Mass Communication Vocational Law Others Education Paramedical Agriculture Nursing Pharmacy Dental Performing Arts

CollegeDekho's expert counsellors can help you with all your doubts

• Enter a Valid Name
• Enter a Valid Mobile
• Enter a Valid Email
• By proceeding ahead you expressly agree to the CollegeDekho terms of use and privacy policy

Details Saved

Your College Admissions journey has just begun !

Try our AI-powered College Finder. Feed in your preferences, let the AI match them against millions of data points & voila! you get what you are looking for, saving you hours of research & also earn rewards

For every question answered, you get a REWARD POINT that can be used as a DISCOUNT in your CAF fee. Isn’t that great?

1 Reward Point = 1 Rupee

Basis your Preference we have build your recommendation.

Welcome to the University Digital Library

• E-book Catalogue
• Full Text theses (PhD/DLitt/DSc)

library locations

ALP = Alipore Campus Library, University of Calcutta

1, Reformatory Steet, Kolkata - 700027

CL = Central Library, University of Calcutta

87/1, College Street, Kolkata - 700073

TSP = Ballygunge Science College (Taraknath Siksha Prangan)

35, Ballygunge Circular Road, Kolkata – 700019

RBSP = Rashbehari Siksha Prangan – Rajabazar Science College

92, Acharyya Prafulla Chandra Road, Kolkata - 700009

ECO = ECONOMICS, B. T. Road Campus

56A, Barrackpore Trunk Road, Kolkata-700050

LAW = Hazra Road Campus

51/1and 51/2 Hazra Road, Kolkata-700019

VLC = Home Science, Viharilal Home Science Campus

20B, Judges Court Road, Alipore, Kolkata -700021

Calcutta University Recruitment 2024 in Ministry of Education Funded Project, Check Details Now

The University of Calcutta recruits Senior Research Fellows for a project funded by the Union Ministry of Education’s STARS-II program. The project, titled “Deep Ultraviolet Light Emitting Diodes Based on AIGAN and INAIGAN Thin Films and Nanorods for Skin-Tolerant Pathogen Inactivation Applications,” will be conducted at the Institute of Radio Physics and Electronics.

Candidates with an M.Tech in Radio Physics & Electronics, MSc in Electronic Science, or MSc in Physics, along with over two years of research experience post-M.Tech or M.Sc, are eligible. The monthly salary is Rs. 35,000, with an additional house rent allowance. Interviews will be held at the university institutes on May 15 at 2:30 pm, and applicants should bring their application forms and documents. Further details are available on the university website.

Calcutta University Recruitment Vacancies 2024

Calcutta University is hiring a Senior Research Fellow for a project funded by the Ministry of Education’s STARS-2 program.

Eligibility for Calcutta University Recruitment 

The position available at the Calcutta University is for a Senior Research Fellow. Applicants should hold either an M.Tech in Radio Physics & Electronics or an M.Sc. in Electronic Science or Physics. Additionally, they need to have more than two years of research experience after completing their M.Tech or M.Sc.

Selection Process for University of Calcutta Recruitment 

The selection process for the Senior Research Fellow position at the University of Calcutta involves a walk-in interview. Candidates meeting the eligibility criteria are required to appear for the interview.

University of Calcutta Recruitment Application Process 2024

Interested candidates should attend the walk-in interview on the specified date, which is May 15, 2024, at 2:30 pm. They need to bring their application on white paper along with photocopies of all testimonials. Original documents for verification should also be brought along. For any queries regarding the application process, candidates can contact Dr. Anirban Bhattacharyya via email at [email protected] .

Offcial Website of University of Calcutta — www.caluniv.ac.in

The University of Calcutta Recruitment 2024 Notification

Pradip Chakraborty is a passionate news oriented content writer, and editor at karmasandhan which fulfills the readers need with his creative news contents.

2 thoughts on “Calcutta University Recruitment 2024 in Ministry of Education Funded Project, Check Details Now”

Can you please inform me about any job vacancies in Bengali field at Kolkata?

Subhashree Paul M.A. Bengali B.Ed. Spcl. Edu. Continue

Can you please inform me about job vacancy in psychology field at Kolkata?

Sukannya Bhattacharjee M.Sc. Psychology B.Ed. Spl. Edu pursuing

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Calcutta University RET Solved Papers 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020 [PDF Download]

Calcutta University RET Previous Question Papers – Overview

Calcutta university ret exam pattern, download calcutta university ret old question papers pdf, calcutta university ret last 5 years question papers pdf’s.

• CU Research Eligibility Test Question Papers 2023 – Click Here
• CU Research Eligibility Test Question Papers 2022 – Click Here
• CU Research Eligibility Test Question Papers 2021 – Click Here
• CU Research Eligibility Test Question Papers 2020 – Click Here
• CU Research Eligibility Test Question Papers 2019 – Click Here

Thank you for visiting our site. For more PhD Entrance Exams question papers visit our Site www.previouspaper.in  regularly.

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

University of Chicago Computer Science Researchers To Present Ten Papers at CHI 2024

The ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems is a premier international conference where researchers and practitioners gather to discuss the latest research in human-computer interaction. Held annually, CHI brings together experts from academia and industry to present groundbreaking research, share insights, and explore future directions in the field.

This year’s conference, CHI 2024, will see a remarkable showcase of innovative research from students and faculty at the University of Chicago Department of Computer Science . Three papers, including one each from Associate Professor Blase Ur’s group, Associate Professor Pedro Lopes’ group, and Associate Professor Marshini Chetty’s group, received best paper awards. Another paper from Lopes’ group also received an honorable mention.

Some works, like papers featuring Neubauer Professor Nick Feamster and Associate Professor Marshini Chetty, are also collaborations with faculty from The Law School and the Harris School of Public Policy , highlighting the interdisciplinary work that often takes place in the department. Each paper span a diverse range of topics, including contextual notifications for highlighting fairness and bias in data science, in-depth studies of online content moderation policies, investigations into compliance with privacy regulations, AI for the well-being of workers, the introduction of a design space for writing assistants, groundbreaking advancements in haptic interfaces, and innovative approaches to promoting digital well-being through leveraging material receipts for screen-time reflection. The work reflects the department’s commitment to advancing knowledge and addressing real-world challenges in the realm of computing.

Bias In Data Science

Best Paper Award Harrison et al., 2024. JupyterLab in Retrograde: Contextual Notifications That Highlight Fairness and Bias Issues for Data Scientists.

Although the paper has won an award, the team will be presenting the paper virtually at the conference, rather than traveling to Hawai’i, as a show of solidarity with the community’s protests over the conference’s impact on the local community.

Content Moderation

Schaffner et al., 2024. Community Guidelines Make This the Best Party on the Internet: An In-Depth Study of Online Platforms’ Content Moderation Policies.

Compliance and Privacy Regulations

Tran et al., 2024. Measuring Compliance with the California Consumer Privacy Act Over Space and Time.

AI and Worker’s Well-being

Best Paper Award Das Swain et al., 2024. Sensible and Sensitive AI for Worker Wellbeing: Factors that Inform Adoption and Resistance for Information Workers.

Design Space for Writing Assistants

Lee at el., 2024. A Design Space for Intelligent and Interactive Writing Assistants.

Pushing Boundaries in Haptic Interfaces

Best Paper Award Nith et al., 2024. SplitBody: Reducing Mental Workload while Multitasking via Muscle Stimulation.

Honorable Mention Tanaka et al., 2024. Haptic Source-effector: Full-body Haptics via Non-invasive Brain Stimulation.

Teng et al., 2024. Haptic Permeability: Adding Holes to Tactile Devices Improves Dexterity. Marzursky et al., 2024. Stick&Slip: Altering Fingerpad Friction via Liquid Coatings.

The Human-Computer Integration Lab (directed by Associate Professor Pedro Lopes ) makes a significant impact with not one, but four papers showcasing groundbreaking advancements in haptic interfaces:

Tangible Intervention for Digital Well-being

Sathya et al., 2024. Attention Receipts: Utilizing the Materiality of Receipts to Improve Screen-time Reflection on YouTube.

The University of Chicago Department of Computer Science continues to make significant contributions to the field of human-computer interaction, as evidenced by the diverse and impactful research that will be showcased at CHI 2024 in May. These researchers’ papers exemplify the department’s dedication to advancing knowledge, fostering innovation, and addressing pressing societal issues through computing research.

Related News

Fabrobotics: the fusion of 3d printing and mobile robots, high school students in the collegiate scholars program get to know robots, uchicago computer scientists design small backpack that mimics big sensations, computer science class shows students how to successfully create circuit boards without engineering experience, uchicago cs researchers shine at chi 2023 with 12 papers and multiple awards, new prototypes aerorigui and throwio take spatial interaction to new heights – literally, computer science displays catch attention at msi’s annual robot block party, uchicago, stanford researchers explore how robots and computers can help strangers have meaningful in-person conversations, high school students find their place in computing through wearables workshop, uchicago cs researchers create living smartwatch to explore human-device relations, uchicago research tests whether robots or humans are better game partners, first in-person robotics class lets students see code come to (artificial) life.

Is the Wisconsin Taxpayer Stingy?

Junjie Guo, Kim Ruhl and Ananth Seshadri

Executive Summary:

• Recent reports note that Wisconsin is 42nd in the nation when it comes to funding the UW-System. Wisconsin allocates a larger share of higher-education appropriations to 2-year institutions than most other states and a smaller share to 4-year This distinction is becoming less meaningful as the 2-year technical colleges offer liberal arts transfer degrees as a pathway to a 4-year institution and the UW-System schools are increasingly focused on majors that satisfy workforce demands.
• This paper addresses the question: Is the Wisconsin taxpayer rather stingy in funding higher education in Wisconsin and, in particular, funding UW-Madison?
• Wisconsin is 22nd in the nation when it comes to total higher-education appropriations per full-time equivalent (FTE) undergraduate, which includes both UW-System and technical college While this measure declined in the last decade, it also declined between 2003 and 2010. Despite the decline, it has remained higher than the median in the United States for more than the last two decades.
• After accounting for state income per capita, Wisconsin’s appropriations per FTE undergraduate are appreciably higher than the national average, casting doubt on the notion that the Wisconsin taxpayer is stingy.
• State appropriations per FTE undergraduate are higher for UW-Madison than the median of other Big-10 universities and the median of other public institutions in the Association of American Universities (AAU).
• As a share of university revenue, state appropriations for UW-Madison are similar to the median of other Big-10 universities and the median of other public AAU institutions.
• States exert influence over in-state Reservegate led to a decade-long tuition freeze in Wisconsin. Focusing on the sum of tuition and fees and state appropriations, we find that UW-Madison is slightly below the median of Big-10 peers.
• In the past, UW System tuition rose to offset declines in state support to protect the university system. That implicit contract is now broken. If the state deems UW- Madison worthy of additional support, it ought to come from increases in in-state tuition and not on the backs of the Wisconsin taxpayer.

Read White Paper #5

• Facebook Logo
• Twitter Logo
• Linkedin Logo