Retractions from altmetric and bibliometric perspectives

Shema, Hadas; Hahn, Oliver; Mazarakis, Athanasios; Peters, Isabella

doi:10.1515/iwp-2019-2006

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Regardless of this, Furman, Jensen, and Murray (2012) observed that biomedicine retractions cause an immediate, severe, and long-lived decline in future citations to their authors. Shema, Hahn, Mazarakis, and Peters (2019) compared the altmetrics impact of retracted papers, noticing a significant social media impact for these publications. However, retractions are not uniformed by disciplines or regions.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

The relationship and incidence of three editorial notices in PubPeer: Errata, expressions of concern, and retractions

Ortega

2020

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article studies the incidence and relationship of three important relevant editorial notices: errata, expressions of concern, and retractions.The journal club PubPeer was used to extract 39,449 research articles and the 2,308 errata, 189 expressions of concern, and 1,531 retractions associated with these publications. The relationship, time delay, and evolution of these publications were then compared, as was their incidence in journals and disciplines. The results show that the relationship between them is scant, the increase in these notices is in proportion to the scientific literature, and the time delay between publication and editorial notice is frequently over 3 years. According to incidence, editorial notices are more frequent in journals specializing in biochemistry, medicine, and multidisciplinarity, and cancer journals release more errata. Research areas with more editorial notices are the life and health sciences. The research fields with the highest percentages of errata and retractions are Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, and Immunology and Microbiology. It is recognized that the use of PubPeer as a data source may have influenced the results.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

The relationship and incidence of three editorial notices in PubPeer: Errata, expressions of concern, and retractions

Ortega

2020

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The presence of extra-topical factors also influence the amount of Twitter attention an article receives. Prior research has found that retractions based on research misconduct attract substantially more online attention than retractions due to error, while the opposite is true of post-retraction journal citations [30,31]. However, neither study performed user or content analysis of the tweets.…”

Section: Characteristics Of Online Attention To Retractionsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Twitter Engagement with Retracted Articles: Who, When, and How?

Abhari¹,

Vincent²,

Dambanemuya³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Retracted research discussed on social media can spread misinformation, yet we lack an understanding of how retracted articles are mentioned by academic and non-academic users. This is especially relevant on Twitter due to the platform's prominent role in science communication. Here, we analyze the pre and post retraction differences in Twitter engagement metrics and content of mentions for over 3,800 retracted English-language articles alongside comparable non-retracted articles. We subset these findings according to the five user types detected by our supervised learning classifier: members of the public, scientists, bots, practitioners, and science communicators. We find that retracted articles receive greater overall engagement than non-retracted articles, especially among members of the public and bot users, the majority of engagement happening prior to retraction. Our results highlight non-scientists' involvement in retracted article discussions and suggest an opportunity for Twitter to include a retraction notice feature.

show abstract

“…These full deletions could cause erroneous assumptions drawn from statistics and imply an instability of Wikipedia references as a measurement instrument. In classical bibliometric approaches, comparable issues are negligible since changes of the reference lists in papers are almost impossible, and retractions of papers (together with their referencing lists) are very rare events (Shema et al, 2019). But for altmetrics, the phenomena of citation data volatility need to be discussed in the community.…”

Section: Evolution Of Wikipedia Referencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“I updated the <ref>”: The evolution of references in the English Wikipedia and the implications for altmetrics

Zagovora

Ulloa

Weller

et al. 2022

Quantitative Science Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With this work, we present a publicly available dataset of the history of all the references (more than 55 million) ever used in the English Wikipedia until June 2019. We have applied a new method for identifying and monitoring references in Wikipedia, so that for each reference we can provide data about associated actions: creation, modifications, deletions, and reinsertions. The high accuracy of this method and the resulting dataset was confirmed via a comprehensive crowdworker labelling campaign. We use the dataset to study the temporal evolution of Wikipedia references as well as users’ editing behaviour. We find evidence of a mostly productive and continuous effort to improve the quality of references: (1) there is a persistent increase of reference and document identifiers (DOI, PubMedID, PMC, ISBN, ISSN, ArXiv ID), and (2) most of the reference curation work is done by registered humans (not bots or anonymous editors). We conclude that the evolution of Wikipedia references, including the dynamics of the community processes that tend to them should be leveraged in the design of relevance indexes for altmetrics, and our dataset can be pivotal for such an effort. Peer Review https://publons.com/publon/10.1162/qss_a_00171

show abstract

Retractions from altmetric and bibliometric perspectives

Cited by 10 publications

References 22 publications

The relationship and incidence of three editorial notices in PubPeer: Errata, expressions of concern, and retractions

The relationship and incidence of three editorial notices in PubPeer: Errata, expressions of concern, and retractions

Twitter Engagement with Retracted Articles: Who, When, and How?

“I updated the <ref>”: The evolution of references in the English Wikipedia and the implications for altmetrics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Retractions from altmetric and bibliometric perspectives

Cited by 10 publications

References 22 publications

The relationship and incidence of three editorial notices in PubPeer: Errata, expressions of concern, and retractions

The relationship and incidence of three editorial notices in PubPeer: Errata, expressions of concern, and retractions

Twitter Engagement with Retracted Articles: Who, When, and How?

“I updated the &lt;ref&gt;”: The evolution of references in the English Wikipedia and the implications for altmetrics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

“I updated the <ref>”: The evolution of references in the English Wikipedia and the implications for altmetrics