Citation of Retracted Articles in Engineering: A Study of the Web of Science Database

Rubbo, Priscila; Pilatti, Luiz Alberto; Picinin, Cláudia Tânia

doi:10.1080/10508422.2018.1559064

Cited by 18 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Interestingly, the pre‐retraction network illustrates an AR citing another AR , and both were from the same group of authors. This is consistent with (Rubbo, Pilatti, & Picinin, )’s finding that self‐citations often occurred pre‐retraction.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 92%

Systematic examination of pre‐ and post‐retraction citations

Dinh

Sarol

Cheng

et al. 2019

Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientific retractions occur for a multitude of reasons. A growing body of research has studied the phenomenon of retraction through systematic analyses of the characteristics of retracted articles and their associated citations. In our study, we focus on the characteristics of articles that cite retracted articles, and the changes in citation dynamics pre‐ and post‐retraction. We leverage descriptive statistics and ego‐network methods to examine 4,871 retracted articles and their citations before and after retraction. Our retracted articles data was obtained from PubMed, Scopus, and Retraction Watch and their citing articles from Scopus. Our findings indicate a stark decrease in post‐retraction citations and that most of these citations came from countries different from the retracted article's country of publication. Citation context analyses of a subset of retracted articles also reveal that post‐retraction citations came from articles with disciplinary and geographical boundaries different from that of the retracted article.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 92%

Systematic examination of pre‐ and post‐retraction citations

Dinh

Sarol

Cheng

et al. 2019

Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The most comprehensive identification of retracted papers is probably from Grieneisen and Zhang (2012), which sought to assemble retracted papers from 42 sources, and the Retraction Watch database (Retraction Watch n.d.), which became publicly searchable in 2018. For retrieving citation data, Web of Science has been the most frequent source of citations (e.g., Budd et al 1998;Garfield and Welljams-Dorof 1990;Madlock-Brown and Eichmann 2015;Pfeifer and Snodgrass 1990;Redman et al 2008;Wright 1991), with some recent studies using data from Scopus (e.g., Bar-Ilan and Halevi 2018;Budd et al 2016;Gray et al 2018;Rubbo et al 2018; van der Vet and Nijveen 2016), Google Scholar (Jan et al 2018), or multiple of these sources (e.g., Avenell et al 2019;Fulton et al 2015a;Hamilton 2019).…”

Section: Citation Of Retracted Papersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bar-Ilan and Helavi sourced retractions from ScienceDirect (2017, 2018), and in Wray and Andersen's study of retracted articles published in the journal Science almost all received post-retraction citations (2018). Retracted engineering articles indexed in Web of Science received fewer citations than a set of control articles published in the same journal volume and number (Rubbo et al 2018). Some arts and humanities articles from Retraction Watch and Scopus have been shown to receive ongoing post-retraction citations as well (Halevi 2019).…”

Section: Citation Of Retracted Papersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The retracted articles had more citations on average and more self-citations, and only 14 (5%) of the retraction notices had been cited. Self-citations made up 481/1291 (37%) of the pre-retraction citations and 74/1057 (7%) of the post-retraction citations (Rubbo et al 2018). Self-citation was more prevalent before retraction (81 or 34%) than post-retraction self-citation (22 or 9%) (Rubbo et al 2018).…”

Section: Author Self-citation Of Retracted Papersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Continued post-retraction citation of a fraudulent clinical trial report, 11 years after it was retracted for falsifying data

Schneider

Hill

et al. 2020

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a case study of long-term post-retraction citation to falsified clinical trial data (Matsuyama et al. in Chest 128(6):3817–3827, 2005. 10.1378/chest.128.6.3817), demonstrating problems with how the current digital library environment communicates retraction status. Eleven years after its retraction, the paper continues to be cited positively and uncritically to support a medical nutrition intervention, without mention of its 2008 retraction for falsifying data. To date no high quality clinical trials reporting on the efficacy of omega-3 fatty acids on reducing inflammatory markers have been published. Our paper uses network analysis, citation context analysis, and retraction status visibility analysis to illustrate the potential for extended propagation of misinformation over a citation network, updating and extending a case study of the first 6 years of post-retraction citation (Fulton et al. in Publications 3(1):7–26, 2015. 10.3390/publications3010017). The current study covers 148 direct citations from 2006 through 2019 and their 2542 second-generation citations and assesses retraction status visibility of the case study paper and its retraction notice on 12 digital platforms as of 2020. The retraction is not mentioned in 96% (107/112) of direct post-retraction citations for which we were able to conduct citation context analysis. Over 41% (44/107) of direct post-retraction citations that do not mention the retraction describe the case study paper in detail, giving a risk of diffusing misinformation from the case paper. We analyze 152 second-generation citations to the most recent 35 direct citations (2010–2019) that do not mention the retraction but do mention methods or results of the case paper, finding 23 possible diffusions of misinformation from these non-direct citations to the case paper. Link resolving errors from databases show a significant challenge in a reader reaching the retraction notice via a database search. Only 1/8 databases (and 1/9 database records) consistently resolved the retraction notice to its full-text correctly in our tests. Although limited to evaluation of a single case (N = 1), this work demonstrates how retracted research can continue to spread and how the current information environment contributes to this problem.

show abstract

“…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 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research ethics: a profile of retractions from world class universities

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Citation of Retracted Articles in Engineering: A Study of the Web of Science Database

Cited by 18 publications

References 44 publications

Systematic examination of pre‐ and post‐retraction citations

Systematic examination of pre‐ and post‐retraction citations

Continued post-retraction citation of a fraudulent clinical trial report, 11 years after it was retracted for falsifying data

Research ethics: a profile of retractions from world class universities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About