Persistent Citation of the Only Published Randomised Controlled Trial of Omega-3 Supplementation in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Six Years after Its Retraction

Abstract

Scientific articles are retracted infrequently, yet have the potential to influence the scientific literature for years. The only randomised controlled trial to explore the effects of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was retracted in 2008 due to falsified data. The objective of this research was to determine the frequency and nature of citations of this retracted paper. Web of Science and Google Scholar were used to determine the number of times the retracted article was cited. Citations were classified as either "retraction acknowledged" or "retraction not acknowledged". The search was conducted on 6 August 2013 and updated on 25 March 2014. Results: The search resulted in 76 citations, of which 24 occurred prior to the retraction of the article. Of the 52 OPEN ACCESSPublications 2015, 3 18 citations occurring after the retraction, only two acknowledged the retraction. Of the citations not acknowledging the retraction, 20 referred to specific data and 30 cited the reference in passing. This retracted article continues to be cited by authors, suggesting that information about the retraction was unsuccessfully communicated to the scientific community. Continual citation of retracted literature has the potential to bias a field of research and potentially misinform end-users.

Propagation of errors in citation networks: a study involving the entire citation network of a widely cited paper published in, and later retracted from, the journal Nature

“…To conclude, in line with what earlier authors have found [ 16 – 18 , 26 ], propagation of retracted results through directly citing articles is a real scenario. On the other hand, in our case study, we have not seen propagation of a retracted result beyond those directly citing articles.…”

“…Therefore, they did not find examples of their scenario. Fulton and co-workers, on the other hand, have studied a single case in detail but have concentrated only on articles that directly cite the retracted article [ 26 ]. Like that paper, we focus on a single case because that way we have the possibility to study the contents of the papers involved.…”

“…We study articles that directly cite a retracted article both before and after retraction. Unlike Fulton and co-workers [ 26 ], we identify the entire citation environment of the retracted paper. We thus also inspect articles that are connected to the retracted article through a chain of citations in order to find out whether in this case the scenario identified in [ 25 ] has become a reality.…”

Open Access Publishing of Health Research: Does Open Access Publishing Facilitate the Translation of Research into Health Policy and Practice?

“…However, print journals have also been duped, such as the NEJM and Nature by the Duke University saga [58] and the Lancet by Wakefield's paper on MMR and Autism [59].Thus, both OA and non-OA journals have been victims of academic fraud. However, neither have responded appropriately, as revealed by low retraction rates (0.004%) and slow retraction times (three years) [60]; furthermore incomplete retraction databases allow high rates of post-retraction citation [61]. Considering this evidence neither OA nor subscription journals could claim to be of a higher standard.…”

Persistent Citation of the Only Published Randomized Controlled Trial of Omega-3 Supplementation in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Six Years after Its Retraction

“…The authors requested the following corrections to their paper [1]. On page 19 in the results section, "20 were classified as containing specific data and 30 were classified as cited in passing" was replaced with "18 were classified as containing specific data and 32 were classified as cited in passing".…”