A protocol to gather, characterize and analyze incoming citations of retracted articles.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Heibi I
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9295990 | biostudies-literature | 2022
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
A protocol to gather, characterize and analyze incoming citations of retracted articles.
PloS one 20220719 7
In this article, we present a methodology which takes as input a collection of retracted articles, gathers the entities citing them, characterizes such entities according to multiple dimensions (disciplines, year of publication, sentiment, etc.), and applies a quantitative and qualitative analysis on the collected values. The methodology is composed of four phases: (1) identifying, retrieving, and extracting basic metadata of the entities which have cited a retracted article, (2) extracting and ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ImportanceRetraction is a tool that journals can use to deter research misconduct and alert their audience to erroneous content published in the journals. However, retracted articles may continue to damage science if they are still cited as legitimate articles.ObjectiveTo characterize patterns of postretraction citations, particularly in microRNA biomarker research, a field with one of the highest rates of retraction.Evidence reviewRetracted scientific articles on microRNAs were retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, and Retraction Watch between database inception and July 17, 2021, according to preestablished search strategies. Control articles with characteristics in common with retracted articles (ie, published in the same journals in the same years and months and with the same number of authors) were matched and retrieved from PubMed. Citation metrics of retractions and control articles were collected from Web of Science. PubPeer was referenced to examine the public response or comments on included retractions. Data were analyzed from September 2021 through March 2023.FindingsA total of 10 461 articles were analyzed, with 887 retractions and 9574 articles as controls. Among retracted articles, which were published from 1999 to 2021, there were 756 articles (85.23%) written by researchers affiliated with Chinese institutions. Retracted articles were cited 6327 times after retraction. Of 792 retracted articles that were cited, 621 articles (78.41%) were cited at least once after retraction and 238 articles (30.05%) were cited more often after retraction than before retraction. Overall citations (comprising citations before and after retraction) and postretraction citations accumulated over time (eg, the median [IQR] number of postretraction citations was 1 [1-2] and 23 [9-44] citations at the first 6 and 66 months, respectively, between retraction and citation retrieval). A random sample of 87 retracted articles (9.81%) recorded 478 citations after retraction, with 208 citations (43.51%) in articles published 12 months or longer after retraction. Of these citing articles, 19 articles (3.97%) mentioned the retractions. Compared with the control group of 1620 nonretracted articles, no significant differences were found in overall number of citations or citations after retraction. Among 478 articles citing retracted articles, 414 articles were found on PubMed and had matched control articles; these articles had higher odds of being subsequently retracted than 7954 matched control articles (odds ratio, 6.57; 95% CI, 3.39-12.72).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, retraction was not associated with a reduction in citations of retracted articles, but articles that cited retracted publications had higher odds of later retraction. These findings suggest that journals may need to implement mechanisms for detection of postretraction citations.
| S-EPMC10958238 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8299312 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In this article, we show the results of a quantitative and qualitative analysis of open citations on a popular and highly cited retracted paper: "Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis and pervasive developmental disorder in children" by Wakefield et al., published in 1998. The main purpose of our study is to understand the behavior of the publications citing one retracted article and the characteristics of the citations the retracted article accumulated over time. Our analysis is based on a methodology which illustrates how we gathered the data, extracted the topics of the citing articles and visualized the results. The data and services used are all open and free to foster the reproducibility of the analysis. The outcomes concerned the analysis of the entities citing Wakefield et al.'s article and their related in-text citations. We observed a constant increasing number of citations in the last 20 years, accompanied with a constant increment in the percentage of those acknowledging its retraction. Citing articles have started either discussing or dealing with the retraction of Wakefield et al.'s article even before its full retraction happened in 2010. Articles in the social sciences domain citing the Wakefield et al.'s one were among those that have mostly discussed its retraction. In addition, when observing the in-text citations, we noticed that a large number of the citations received by Wakefield et al.'s article has focused on general discussions without recalling strictly medical details, especially after the full retraction. Medical studies did not hesitate in acknowledging the retraction of the Wakefield et al.'s article and often provided strong negative statements on it.
| S-EPMC8338205 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo evaluate the frequency and reason for retraction of ophthalmology publications.MethodsTwo independent reviewers retrieved data from PubMed and Medline using appropriate keywords. Statistical analysis was carried out using Mann-Whitney U test. A total of 83 articles were selected for the analysis between 1994 and 2019. Articles were retracted after a median of 1 year (IQR 4.0), and 55 (66.3%) articles were published in the year 2010 or after.ResultsForty-eight (57.8%) articles were original articles. The most common subspecialties involved were basic science (51.8%), followed by vitreoretinal diseases (13.3%) and cornea and external diseases (7.1%). Fraudulent data were the cause of retraction in 22 (26.5%) articles, and 14 articles (16.87%) were retracted because of plagiarism. Thirteen articles (15.7%) were retracted due to errors in the data calculations, and ten (12.04%) were found to be duplicate submissions of previously published articles by the same author, while five articles (6.02%) had authorship disputes. Thirty-nine (46.9%) retracted articles were published in a journal with an impact factor greater than 2. The median number of citations received by the retracted articles was 2.0 (IQR 9.0).ConclusionsWe conclude that the number of retractions in the ophthalmic literature have increased since 2010, though relatively limited information is available on the retracted articles. There is a need to strictly follow the current guidelines for providing the reasons for retraction and displaying retraction notices both in PubMed and on the journal websites.
| S-EPMC8602331 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceWomen are less likely to be promoted and hold leadership positions in academic medicine. How often academic articles are cited is a key measure of scholarly impact and frequently assessed for professional advancement; however, it is unknown whether peer-reviewed articles written by men and women are cited differently.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether academic articles from high-impact medical journals written by men and women are cited differently.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cross-sectional study of all original research and commentary articles from 5 high-impact medical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, JAMA, JAMA Internal Medicine, and The New England Journal of Medicine) from 2015 to 2018, the gender of the primary and senior authors of each article were identified using an online database, and the number of times each article has been cited was identified using Web of Science. The number of citations by primary and senior author gender were then compared. Data were analyzed from July 2020 to April 2021.ExposuresPrimary and senior authors' genders.Main outcomes and measuresNumber of citations per article.ResultsAmong 5554 articles, women wrote 1975 (35.6%) as primary author and 1273 of 4940 (25.8%) as senior author. Original research articles written by women as primary authors had fewer median (interquartile range) citations than articles written by men as primary authors (36 [17-82] citations vs 54 [22-141] citations; P < .001) and senior authors (37 [17-93] citations vs 51 [20-128] citations; P < .001). Articles written by women as both primary and senior authors had approximately half as many median (interquartile range) citations as those authored by men as both primary and senior authors (33 [15-68] citations vs 59 [23-149] citations; P < .001). Differences in citations remained in each year of the study and were less pronounced among commentary articles.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, articles written by women in high-impact medical journals had fewer citations than those written by men, particularly when women wrote together as primary and senior authors. These differences may have important consequences for the professional success of women and achieving gender equity in academic medicine.
| S-EPMC8254129 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The effective evaluation of the impact of a scholarly article is a significant endeavor; for this reason, it has garnered attention. From the perspective of knowledge flow, this paper extracted various knowledge flow patterns concealed in articles citation counts to describe the citation impact of the articles. First, the intensity characteristic of knowledge flow was investigated to distinguish the different citation vitality of articles. Second, the knowledge diffusion capacity was examined to differentiate the size of the scope of articles' influences on the academic environment. Finally, the knowledge transfer capacity was discussed to investigate the support degree of articles on the follow-up research. Experimental results show that articles got more citations recently have a higher knowledge flow intensity. The articles have various impacts on the academic environment and have different supporting effects on the follow-up research, representing the differences in their knowledge diffusion and knowledge transfer capabilities. Compared with the single quantitative index of citation frequency, these knowledge flow patterns can carefully explore the citation value of articles. By integrating the three knowledge flow patterns to examine the total citation impact of articles, we found that the articles exhibit distinct value of citation impact even if they were published in the same field, in the same year, and with similar citation frequencies.
| S-EPMC6872168 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis study examines the extent to which retracted articles pertaining to COVID-19 have been shared via social and mass media based on altmetric scores.MethodsSeventy-one retracted articles related to COVID-19 were identified from relevant databases, of which thirty-nine had an Altmetric Attention Score obtained using the Altmetrics Bookmarklet. Data extracted from the articles include overall attention score and demographics of sharers (e.g., geographic location, professional affiliation).ResultsRetracted articles related to COVID-19 were shared tens of thousands of times to an audience of potentially hundreds of millions of readers and followers. Twitter was the largest medium for sharing these articles, and the United States was the country with the most sharers. While general members of the public were the largest proportion of sharers, researchers and professionals were not immune to sharing these articles on social media and on websites, blogs, or news media.ConclusionsThese findings have potential implications for better understanding the spread of misleading or false information perpetuated in retracted scholarly publications. They emphasize the importance of quality peer review and research ethics among journals and responsibility among individuals who wish to share research findings.
| S-EPMC8830369 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe number of retracted scholarly articles has risen precipitously in recent years. Past surveys of the retracted literature each limited their scope to articles in PubMed, though many retracted articles are not indexed in PubMed. To understand the scope and characteristics of retracted articles across the full spectrum of scholarly disciplines, we surveyed 42 of the largest bibliographic databases for major scholarly fields and publisher websites to identify retracted articles. This study examines various trends among them.ResultsWe found, 4,449 scholarly publications retracted from 1928-2011. Unlike Math, Physics, Engineering and Social Sciences, the percentages of retractions in Medicine, Life Science and Chemistry exceeded their percentages among Web of Science (WoS) records. Retractions due to alleged publishing misconduct (47%) outnumbered those due to alleged research misconduct (20%) or questionable data/interpretations (42%). This total exceeds 100% since multiple justifications were listed in some retraction notices. Retraction/WoS record ratios vary among author affiliation countries. Though widespread, only miniscule percentages of publications for individual years, countries, journals, or disciplines have been retracted. Fifteen prolific individuals accounted for more than half of all retractions due to alleged research misconduct, and strongly influenced all retraction characteristics. The number of articles retracted per year increased by a factor of 19.06 from 2001 to 2010, though excluding repeat offenders and adjusting for growth of the published literature decreases it to a factor of 11.36.ConclusionsRetracted articles occur across the full spectrum of scholarly disciplines. Most retracted articles do not contain flawed data; and the authors of most retracted articles have not been accused of research misconduct. Despite recent increases, the proportion of published scholarly literature affected by retraction remains very small. Articles and editorials discussing retractions, or their relation to research integrity, should always consider individual cases in these broad contexts. However, better mechanisms are still needed for raising researchers' awareness of the retracted literature in their field.
| S-EPMC3480361 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This data aimed to audit the articles retracted from PubMed indexed dental journals from India. The PubMed indexed journals considered are Indian Journal of Dental research, Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology, Contemporary Clinical Dentistry, Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology and Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society for type of article, name of dental specialty, topic of individual dental specialties, causes for retraction of article and authorship trend of retracted articles using web-based search. Among PubMed indexed Indian dental journals,the number of retracted articles were as follows: Indian Journal of Dental research (4) followed by Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology (3), Contemporary Clinical Dentistry (3), Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry (2), Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology (2) and Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society (1). Out of 15 retracted articles from PubMed indexed Indian dental journals, case reports (7) form a major share followed by original articles(6) and review articles (2). Among the dental specialties of retracted articles, oral pathology and microbiology (5) constitute the major share followed by periodontics (4), pedodontics (4), oral medicine and radiology (1) and prosthodontics (1). Duplicate publication (7), plagiarism (5) and authorship dispute (3) are the causes for the retraction of article.
| S-EPMC5996733 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The number of retracted articles has grown fast. However, the extent to which researchers and the public are made adequately aware of these retractions and how the media and social media respond to them remains unknown. Here, we aimed to evaluate the media and social media attention received by retracted articles and assess also the attention they receive post-retraction versus pre-retraction. We downloaded all records of retracted literature maintained by the Retraction Watch Database and originally published between January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2015. For all 3,008 retracted articles with a separate DOI for the original and its retraction, we downloaded the respective Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) (from Altmetric) and citation count (from Crossref), for the original article and its retraction notice on June 6, 2018. We also compared the AAS of a random sample of 572 retracted full journal articles available on PubMed to that of unretracted full articles matched from the same issue and journal. 1,687 (56.1%) of retracted research articles received some amount of Altmetric attention, and 165 (5.5%) were even considered popular (AAS>20). 31 (1.0%) of 2,953 with a record on Crossref received >100 citations by June 6, 2018. Popular articles received substantially more attention than their retraction, even after adjusting for attention received post-retraction (Median difference, 29; 95% CI, 17-61). Unreliable results were the most frequent reason for retraction of popular articles (32; 19%), while fake peer review was the most common reason (421; 15%) for the retraction of other articles. In comparison to matched articles, retracted articles tended to receive more Altmetric attention (23/31 matched groups; P-value, 0.01), even after adjusting for attention received post-retraction. Our findings reveal that retracted articles may receive high attention from media and social media and that for popular articles, pre-retraction attention far outweighs post-retraction attention.
| S-EPMC8115781 | biostudies-literature