Bibliometric and Altmetric Analysis of Retracted Articles on COVID-19

Khan, Hiba; Gupta, Prakash; Zimba, Olena; Gupta, Latika

doi:10.3346/jkms.2022.37.e44

Cited by 14 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Unfortunately, this issue happened not only in journals with a reputation for a weak review process or low publishing difficulty but also in prestigious journals that are widely respected. Worse still, these retracted works earned a substantial number of citations and extensive media attention [32]. The general public may assume that papers published in academic journals are trustworthy and may likewise trust secondary sources such as scientific news reporting the results of academic findings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Auditing citation polarization during the COVID-19 pandemic

You¹,

Park²,

Lee³

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The recent pandemic stimulated scientists to publish a significant amount of research that created a surge of citations of COVID-19-related papers in a short time, leading to an abrupt inflation of the journal impact factor (IF). By auditing the complete set of COVID-19-related publications in the Web of Science, we reveal here that COVID-19-related research worsened the polarization of academic journals: the IF before the pandemic was proportional to the increment of IF, which had the effect of increasing inequality while retaining the journal rankings. We also found that the most highly cited studies related to COVID-19 were published in prestigious journals at the onset of the epidemic, independent of their innate importance or quality. Through the present quantitative investigation, our findings caution against the belief that quantitative metrics, particularly IF, can indicate the significance of individual papers. Rather, such metrics reflect the social attention given to a particular study.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Auditing citation polarization during the COVID-19 pandemic

You¹,

Park²,

Lee³

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This result shows the potential for dissemination of data, results and information presented in retracted articles on various internet and social media platforms. 30 This can trigger the spread of misleading information not only in the scientific world but also in society. It can go one step further and induce undeniable problems that threaten public health, such as anti-vaccination attitudes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of Retracted Publications in The Biomedical Literature from Turkey

Koçyiğit

Akyol

2022

J Korean Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Retraction is a process for correcting the literature and provides a barrier to the dissemination of publications that include major faults or false-misleading data. The aim of this study was to examine the characteristics of retracted articles in the biomedical field sourced from Turkey. Methods In this descriptive cross-sectional study, all retracted publications from Turkey on PubMed were listed without date restriction. Data covering the article title, authors, publication date, retraction date, time between publication and retraction dates (in months), journal, article type, country of the corresponding author, peer review timeline (in days), reason for retraction, and subject area of the retracted item were recorded. Citation data were obtained using the Scopus database. The altmetric attention scores of the articles were recorded. Results A total of 102 articles were listed and after the implementation of exclusion criteria, 86 articles were included for analysis. The first retracted article was published in 2000 (n = 1), while the most retracted articles were published in 2020 (n = 11). The median time lag between publication and retraction was 10.33 (0.73–144.06) months. The main factors causing retraction were plagiarism (n = 23), duplication (n = 22) and error (n = 17). The total number of citations was 695. A total of 224 citations were in the pre-retraction period and 471 citations were in the post-retraction period. Conclusion The retracted article counts showed a rising trend over the years. The leading causes of retraction for articles from Turkey were plagiarism, duplication, and error. It was found that the articles continued to be cited after the retraction. Researchers in Turkey should be educated on retraction, particularly plagiarism and duplication. Strategies should be developed to prevent articles from being cited after retraction.

show abstract

“…As such, it participates in "rapid research, " or the practice of publishing articles to appropriately respond to the void of information on what was previously an under-researched topic. What was observed in "rapid research" during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic is that while the speed of publication of articles was 11.5 times faster than publications on influenza, the rate of retractions and withdrawals was also significantly higher [16][17][18].…”

Section: Journalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bibliometric analysis of ChatGPT in medicine

Gande,

Gould,

Ganti

2024

Int J Emerg Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) chat programs has opened two distinct paths, one enhancing interaction and another potentially replacing personal understanding. Ethical and legal concerns arise due to the rapid development of these programs. This paper investigates academic discussions on AI in medicine, analyzing the context, frequency, and reasons behind these conversations. Methods The study collected data from the Web of Science database on articles containing the keyword “ChatGPT” published from January to September 2023, resulting in 786 medically related journal articles. The inclusion criteria were peer-reviewed articles in English related to medicine. Results The United States led in publications (38.1%), followed by India (15.5%) and China (7.0%). Keywords such as “patient” (16.7%), “research” (12%), and “performance” (10.6%) were prevalent. The Cureus Journal of Medical Science (11.8%) had the most publications, followed by the Annals of Biomedical Engineering (8.3%). August 2023 had the highest number of publications (29.3%), with significant growth between February to March and April to May. Medical General Internal (21.0%) was the most common category, followed by Surgery (15.4%) and Radiology (7.9%). Discussion The prominence of India in ChatGPT research, despite lower research funding, indicates the platform’s popularity and highlights the importance of monitoring its use for potential medical misinformation. China’s interest in ChatGPT research suggests a focus on Natural Language Processing (NLP) AI applications, despite public bans on the platform. Cureus’ success in publishing ChatGPT articles can be attributed to its open-access, rapid publication model. The study identifies research trends in plastic surgery, radiology, and obstetric gynecology, emphasizing the need for ethical considerations and reliability assessments in the application of ChatGPT in medical practice. Conclusion ChatGPT’s presence in medical literature is growing rapidly across various specialties, but concerns related to safety, privacy, and accuracy persist. More research is needed to assess its suitability for patient care and implications for non-medical use. Skepticism and thorough review of research are essential, as current studies may face retraction as more information emerges.

show abstract

Bibliometric and Altmetric Analysis of Retracted Articles on COVID-19

Cited by 14 publications

References 36 publications

Auditing citation polarization during the COVID-19 pandemic

Auditing citation polarization during the COVID-19 pandemic

Analysis of Retracted Publications in The Biomedical Literature from Turkey

Bibliometric analysis of ChatGPT in medicine

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About