Self-correction of science: a comparative study of negative citations and post-publication peer review

Abstract

This study investigates whether negative citations in articles and comments posted on post-publication peer review platforms are both equally contributing to the correction of science. These 2 types of written evidence of disputes are compared by analyzing their occurrence in relation to articles that have already been retracted or corrected. We identified retracted or corrected articles in a corpus of 72,069 articles coming from the Engineering field, from 3 journals (Science, Tumor Biology, Cancer Research) and from 3 authors with many retractions to their credit (Sarkar, Schön, Voinnet). We used Scite to retrieve contradicting citations and PubPeer to retrieve the number of comments for each article, and then we considered them as traces left by scientists to contest published results. Our study shows that contradicting citations are very uncommon and that retracted or corrected articles are not more contradicted in scholarly articles than those that are neither retracted nor corrected but they do generate more comments on Pubpeer, presumably because of the possibility for contributors to remain anonymous. Moreover, post-publication peer review platforms, although external to the scientific publication process contribute more to the correction of science than negative citations. Consequently, post-publication peer review venues, and more specifically the comments found on it, although not contributing to the scientific literature, are a mechanism for correcting science. Lastly, we introduced the idea of strengthening the role of contradicting citations to rehabilitate the clear expression of judgment in scientific papers. Article Highlights  Negative citations are very uncommon.  Retracted or corrected papers are not more contradicted than others in scholarly articles.  Post-publication peer review platforms contribute more to the correction of science than in-text negative citations to papers.

Meta-Research: How problematic citing practices distort science

“…Either way, researchers' citing practices play a prominent role in several of these phenomena. However, citation practices have only rarely been the focus of studies relating to the integrity or validity of science (with some exceptions, including (Bordignon, 2020;Greenberg, 2009b;G. Leng & Leng, 2020b;Martin, 2013)).…”

scite: a smart citation index that displays the context of citations and classifies their intent using deep learning

“…A number of researchers have already made use of scite for quantitative assessments of the literature. For example, Bordignon ( 45 ) examined self-correction in the scientific record and operationalized “negative” citations as those which scite classified as disputing. They found that negative citations are rare, even among works that have been retracted.…”

The right to refuse unwanted citations: rethinking the culture of science around the citation

“…In exceptional cases, at least in theory, an academic that does not wish their intellect to be misinterpreted or represented in a low-quality or predatory journal or a fake paper (Bohannon, 2015 ) could approach the editors during post-publication and request that their citation be removed, or replaced. This is theoretically possible if the editors agree to issue a corrigendum or retract and replace a paper to accommodate this extraordinary request (Bordignon, 2020 ). A small caveat to this possibility is that currently, academics, including thought leaders in the field of “predatory publishing,” are unable to clearly distinguish all predatory from non-predatory entities (Grudniewicz et al, 2019 ), except for clear cases, such as OMICS International (Manley, 2019 ).…”