Do your conference organizers help reviewers exclude fraudulent or questionable abstracts? Has any of the research presented at one of your conferences ever been retracted later on? Is the research included in your program based on retracted research?
These are tough questions, mainly because the issues brought up are tough to police. When research is retracted, publications do it very quietly. Not every retracted paper gets the publicity, and notoriety, of Scott S. Reuben, who was convicted of falsifying research data. Twenty-five of his publications were retracted, yet a study by Helmar Bornemann-Cimenti, Istvan S. Szilagyi, and Andreas Sandner-Kiesling found that the retracted research was cited nearly 300 times AFTER the retraction was made public.
Funded by John D. and Katherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, the Center for Scientific Integrity tracks retracted research for you and your reviewers. They even keep a working database of retracted papers for easy searching.
“Visfatin: a protein secreted by visceral fat that mimics the effects of insulin” was retracted in 2007. Before the retractions, it was cited 247 times. After the retraction, 776 times. That means that 1023 other pieces of research are partially based on research that has been deemed invalid. If one extrapolates that the 1023 papers are in turn cited, and so on, one can see how quickly false research extends through the research community ecosystem like a virus.
There is no guarantee that shoddy research doesn’t slip through your review process, but with a good process in place, which might include access to databases likes Retraction Watch, you can decrease the chance that the content of your conference is later deemed worthless.
Mira Smart Conferencing created a library of resources for conferences planners: “Submitter, Author, and Review Help Page.” As the premier abstract management software provider, Mira Smart Conferencing is dedicated to making every conference the best ever.
Bornemann-Cimenti, Helmar; Istvan S. Szilagyi; Andrews Sandner-Kiesling. “Perpetuation of Retracted Publications Using the Example of the Scott S. Reuben Case: Incidences, Reasons and Possible Improvements”. Science and Engineering Ethics. July 7, 2015. Viewed on January 1, 2016. <http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-015-9680-y>
Oransky, Ivan. “The ten most highly cited retracted paper.” Retraction Watch. December 28, 2016. Viewed on January 8, 2016. <http://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-leaderboard/top-10-most-highly-cited-retracted-papers/>