A protocol to gather, characterize and analyze incoming citations of retracted articles

Heibi, Ivan; Peroni, Silvio

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0270872

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The complexities of actual citation practice, we believe, demonstrate the need for care when analysing real citation behaviour from published scientific papers. Interestingly, a number of researchers have sought to automate the process of determining citation purpose using a range of contextual data along with linguistic cues, e.g., Teufel et al [ 22 ], more recently Heibi and Peroni [ 23 ], and in the specific domain of algorithm citation, Tuarob et al [ 24 ]. This supports the notion that treating all citations as equal in quantitative citation analysis may be misleading.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An analysis of retracted papers in Computer Science

Shepperd

Yousefi

2023

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context The retraction of research papers, for whatever reason, is a growing phenomenon. However, although retracted paper information is publicly available via publishers, it is somewhat distributed and inconsistent. Objective The aim is to assess: (i) the extent and nature of retracted research in Computer Science (CS) (ii) the post-retraction citation behaviour of retracted works and (iii) the potential impact upon systematic reviews and mapping studies. Method We analyse the Retraction Watch database and take citation information from the Web of Science and Google scholar. Results We find that of the 33,955 entries in the Retraction watch database (16 May 2022), 2,816 are classified as CS, i.e., ≈ 8%. For CS, 56% of retracted papers provide little or no information as to the reasons. This contrasts with 26% for other disciplines. There is also some disparity between different publishers, a tendency for multiple versions of a retracted paper to be available beyond the Version of Record (VoR), and for new citations long after a paper is officially retracted (median = 3; maximum = 18). Systematic reviews are also impacted with ≈ 30% of the retracted papers having one or more citations from a review. Conclusions Unfortunately, retraction seems to be a sufficiently common outcome for a scientific paper that we as a research community need to take it more seriously, e.g., standardising procedures and taxonomies across publishers and the provision of appropriate research tools. Finally, we recommend particular caution when undertaking secondary analyses and meta-analyses which are at risk of becoming contaminated by these problem primary studies.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An analysis of retracted papers in Computer Science

Shepperd

Yousefi

2023

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…

A retraction refers to the situation when a peer-reviewed academic paper is retracted by the journal that published it, as marked by a retraction notice issued by the venue's editorial board indicating that the study is unreliable [1]. The main reason for the retraction of published scientific papers is scientific misconduct [2].

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of retracted papers in the field of neurology

Wang

Gao

Chen

et al. 2023

Euro J of Neurology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and purposeDespite the growing awareness of academic fraud, its prevalence in the field of neurology has not been fully assessed. This review aims to analyze the characteristics of the retracted papers in the field of neurology and the reasons for the retraction to better understand the trends in this area and to assist to avoid retraction incidents.MethodsA total of 79 papers were included, which pertained to 22 countries and 64 journals. The marking methods for retracting original papers included watermarks (89.04%), retracted signs in the text (5.48%) and no prompt (5.48%). The median M (interquartile range [IQR]) of citations in retractions in neurology was 7 (41). Studies continued to be cited after retraction with an M (IQR) of 3 (16). The journal impact factor was between 0 and 157.335, with an M (IQR) of 5.127 (3.668). 45.21% and 31.51% papers were mainly published in the first and second quartile journals, respectively. The M (IQR) time elapsed between publication and retraction was 32 (44) months. The reasons for retraction included two major categories, academic misconduct (79.75%) and academic unintentional mistakes (20.25%).Results and conclusionsThe number of retractions in neurology has been on the rise over the past decade, with fabricated academic misconduct being the main cause of the retractions. Due to the long time lag between publication and retraction, a number of unreliable findings continue to be cited following retraction. In addition to the requisite standards of academic ethics, augmenting research training and fostering interdisciplinary collaboration are crucial in enhancing research integrity.

show abstract

Partial citation analysis of five classes of retracted papers, and devising a new four-tier citation classification system for retracted (and other) papers

Silva¹,

Nazarovets

2023

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A protocol to gather, characterize and analyze incoming citations of retracted articles

Cited by 6 publications

References 31 publications

An analysis of retracted papers in Computer Science

An analysis of retracted papers in Computer Science

Review of retracted papers in the field of neurology

Partial citation analysis of five classes of retracted papers, and devising a new four-tier citation classification system for retracted (and other) papers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About