Figure 1Figure 1 displays annual number of publications. In 2004, 20 papers were on academic misconduct. During the twenty years, the published papers showed a steady increasing trend, but in 2021, the number decreased slightly and decreased to 115. In 2023, it reached the highest value of 190. The continuous increase in the number of papers indicates the growing global interest and development in academic misconduct research.

Figure 1. Publication trends of papers published each year.

Figure 2Figure 2 shows the distribution of 1562 papers in the top 10 research fields. Many documents were in “Education & Educational Research” field, occupying 9.15% of the whole number. The other four research fields were Psychology (5.95%), Science & Technology—Other Topics (3.78%), Social Sciences—Other Topics, Engineering; History & Philosophy of Science, Science & Technology—Other Topics; Philosophy (3.65%) and General & Internal Medicine (3.33%).

The papers on academic misconduct were published in 449 journals. According to article and citation numbers in each journal, we have determined in our study which 10 journals have contributed most significantly to the field of academic misconduct (Table 1). The 273 papers published by these prestigious journals

Figure 2. Distribution of 1562 papers in the top 10 research fields.

together account for 60.8% of all publications in this discipline. Science and Engineering Ethics stands out as the leading journal with more articles totaling 57. With 52 and 51 publications, Academy of Management DiscoveriesandEthicsBehavior comes second and third among the 10 most prolific journals separately. Among those 10 most prolific journals, papers published in PLOS One had highest total citations which have been cited 1371 times, with the greatest mean citation frequency reaching 72.16 times. The number of total citations of Science and Engineering Ethics and Ethics and Behavior was second and third, respectively, but both papers have fewer citations per article. Notably, journals with fewer publications, such asStudiesinHigher Education, Assessment and Evaluation inHigher Education, Frontiers in Psychologyand Higher Education have amassed a considerable amount of citations per article. This emphasizes how highly significant the articles published in these journals are from an academic standpoint.

Table 1. Features of those 10 most prolific journals for research regarding academic misconduct.

IF5: 5-year impact factor.

Figure 3Figure 3 shows the values of citations per article and 5-year impact factor (IF5) for those 10 most prolific journals. Obviously, the variation trend average citation values were inconsistent with journal IF5, especially for PLOS One whose IF5 took the 7th place among 10 most prolific journals, but the average citation value was the highest. In addition, IF5 of Academy of Management Discoveries ranks first among those 10 most prolific journals, but the average citation value was lowest.

Figure 3. Paper average citations values and 5-year impact factor for those 10 most prolific journals.

Those 15 most prolific countries/territories were investigated for their international collaborations (Table 2). During 2004-2023, the USA, England, China, Australia and Germany emerged as the leading countries regarding the overall number of publications within the field of academic misconduct. The USA tops the list with 530 documents, which have been cited 15205 times. England and China follow with 150 publications and 4115 citations, and 147 publications and 2341 citations respectively. Canada has the highest Average Citations (AC = 50.26). Australia is second (AC = 30.88). The presence of countries from different continents, Asia (China), Europe (England, Germany, Italy, Belgium, France, The Netherlands), Australia and America (USA, Canada), among the top 10 contributors, underscores the global significance of this research topic.

Link represents the indicator (VOSviewer) that indicates the connection number of a factor (like one country/territory) with others (like additional 14 countries/territories). For those 15 most prolific countries/territories, their links were 14, indicating the close collaborations among them. Total Link Strength (TLS) also stands for an indicator (VOSviewer) adopted for representing collaboration strength of selected factors (countries/territories). The collaborative state among these countries, as illustrated in Table 2, indicates that the USA, with the highest link strength of 139, maintains extensive connections with numerous countries, particularly England, Germany, Canada and China. These four countries alone account for 50% of USA’s total link strength, emphasizing strong international collaborations. Figure 4Figure 4 shows visualization of international collaborations among the 15 most prolific countries/territories. When visualizing the network, the circle size for one item could be analyzed through the item weight, with a greater item weight indicating a larger circle. Additionally, the link strength was the highest between USA and England. Of those 10 most significant link strength combinations, there were 6 combinations related to USA. USA had a pivotal role in such collaborations, suggesting the research potential in academic misconduct. Colors in Figure 4Figure 4 can differentiate diverse clusters (with one cluster indicating one set of tightly associated nodes).

Figure 4. International collaborations among 15 most prolific countries/territories.

Table 2. The 15 most prolific countries and relevant indicators.

TP, the number of publications; TC, Total Citations; AC, Average Citations; TLS, Total Link Strength.

Table 3 displays primary performance for 15 most prolific organizations. Of them, eight organizations were in USA, three in China, two in Netherlands and one each in Canada and England. University of Pennsylvania takes the leading position in Total Publications (TP = 16). With regard to institutions, the University of Montreal, University of Pennsylvania, University of Michigan, Leidin University and University of Illinois are identified as the top five in research based on citation numbers. However, University of Montreal was dominant in total citations (TC = 660) and Average Citations (AC = 60). The second is the Leidin University (AC = 41.25) and the third is University of Michigan (AC=40.25). The links of University of Pennsylvania are 12, which indicates the collaboration of the university with an additional 12 organizations. From Figure 5Figure 5, collaborations could be visualized between the top 15 organizations, with different colors indicating diverse clusters.

We investigated the global distribution of 1562 papers. From Table 4, USA is the first prolific country/territory according to first author and CA. USA is advantageous relative to other countries/territories. Hu, Guangwei published the most papers, followed by Resnik, David B. and Casadevall, Arturo. Fanelli, Daniele has the highest average citation count, followed by Fang, Ferric C. and Casadevall, Arturo.

Figure 5. Co-occurrence network of those top 15 prolific organizations.

Table 3. The 15 most prolific organizations and relevant indicators.

Table 4. The 15 most prolific authors.

From Figure 6Figure 6, the author’s co-citation network map plays a crucial role in understanding the interconnections among authors in the field of academic misconduct. From a total of 4510 authors, 1000 were selected for this map according to the minimum citation threshold of 20. This map organizes these authors in six distinct clusters, each representing a group of authors frequently cited in the literature. The largest cluster is represented in red, encompassing 8 authors, with Resnik, David B. standing out as the leading figure. The second cluster, shown in yellow, includes 6 authors. Notably, Arturo Casadevall is prominent within this cluster. The third cluster, shown in deep blue, includes 6 authors. and Ruano-Ravina, Alberto is prominent within this cluster. Each cluster within this map features key authors who act as focal points, around whom other authors are positioned. These individuals are significant contributors to the field, as indicated by their positioning and link strengths in the co-citation network, highlighting their influence and importance in the field of academic misconduct.

Figure 6. Co-citation network analysis of the top 15 most productive authors.

Author keywords represent the literature essence and core, which demonstrate the most interesting areas for researchers. In our research on academic misconduct, we employed co-occurrence network analysis on author keywords for discerning primary research priorities and interests globally. This analysis reveals the most frequently used keywords and their interconnections, providing insights into the dominant themes in this research area. Table 5 displays author keywords (occurrences ≥ 10) and corresponding total link strengths. Of them, “plagiarism” associated words had the highest occurrence, occurring 266 times. In particular, “plagiarism” also has the highest total link strength, illustrating “plagiarism” as a keyword tightly related to others. “Academic dishonesty” is the second-most common word that appears (129 occurrences). Other significant keywords include “scientific misconduct” (85 occurrences), “research misconduct” (80), “academic integrity” (75), “cheating” (73), “ethics” (67), “academic misconduct” (46), “research integrity” (43), and “misconduct” (40). The co-occurrence network demonstrates strong connections between academic misconduct and key areas like plagiarism, academic dishonesty and scientific misconduct.

Table 5. List of author keywords (occurrences ≥ 10) and corresponding total link strengths.

Figure 7Figure 7 exhibits co-occurrence network of author keywords with highest occurrence frequency. The 41 authors’ keyword network (occurrences ≥ 10) was displayed. Typically, these 41 author keywords were classified into six groups, with one color indicating one group. During network visualization, the item cluster indicated author keyword color based on VOSviewer. The first cluster comprises 10 keywords, including but not limited to ethics, misconduct, dishonesty, integrity and falsification. The second cluster, which has 10 keywords, predominantly features terms like fraud, retractions, self-plagiarism and authorship. The remaining clusters, the third, fourth, fifth and sixth, contain 9, 5, 4 and 3 keywords respectively. This keyword analysis underscores the diverse and interconnected aspects of academic misconduct, highlighting the key areas of focus and interest within the global research community.

Figure 7. Co-occurrence network of author keywords with the highest occurrence frequency.