IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v52y2023i7s0048733323000999.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Too official to be effective: An empirical examination of unofficial information channel and continued use of retracted articles

Author

Listed:
  • Xu, Haifeng
  • Ding, Yi
  • Zhang, Cheng
  • Tan, Bernard C.Y.

Abstract

Due to the inadequacy of official notices in disseminating retraction information, a significant proportion of retracted articles continue to be cited in the post-retraction period. There are adverse consequences of citing such questionable articles. This study extends the literature on official versus unofficial information channels by examining three key roles that unofficial information channels can play in disseminating retraction information (i.e., providing broader reach for information dissemination, packaging information from different sources, and creating new information) as well as the effects of these roles. An unofficial information channel affords a broader reach for information dissemination, which reduces post-retraction citations. Moreover, according to the information processing theory, different types of additional information (that comes from the ability of an unofficial information channel to package information from different sources or create new information) can moderate such effect. Leveraging on the launch of Retraction Watch (RW), an unofficial information channel for reporting retractions, this study designed a natural experiment and found that reporting retractions on RW significantly reduced post-retraction citations of non-swiftly retracted articles in biomedical sciences. Furthermore, additional author-related and retraction-related information provided on RW enhanced the main effect, whereas additional article-related information provided on RW weakened the main effect.

Suggested Citation

  • Xu, Haifeng & Ding, Yi & Zhang, Cheng & Tan, Bernard C.Y., 2023. "Too official to be effective: An empirical examination of unofficial information channel and continued use of retracted articles," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(7).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:52:y:2023:i:7:s0048733323000999
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2023.104815
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733323000999
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104815?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Garcia, Filomena & Opromolla, Luca David & Vezzulli, Andrea & Marques, Rafael, 2020. "The effects of official and unofficial information on tax compliance," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    2. Alm, James & Bruner, David M. & McKee, Michael, 2016. "Honesty or dishonesty of taxpayer communications in an enforcement regime," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 85-96.
    3. Quan-Hoang Vuong, 2020. "Reform retractions to make them more transparent," Nature, Nature, vol. 582(7811), pages 149-149, June.
    4. Nicola Lacetera & Lorenzo Zirulia, 2011. "The Economics of Scientific Misconduct," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(3), pages 568-603.
    5. Brian J. Bushee & John E. Core & Wayne Guay & Sophia J.W. Hamm, 2010. "The Role of the Business Press as an Information Intermediary," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1), pages 1-19, March.
    6. Judit Bar-Ilan & Gali Halevi, 2017. "Post retraction citations in context: a case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 547-565, October.
    7. Marshall Van Alstyne & Erik Brynjolfsson, 2005. "Global Village or Cyber-Balkans? Modeling and Measuring the Integration of Electronic Communities," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(6), pages 851-868, June.
    8. Virginia Gewin, 2014. "Retractions: A clean slate," Nature, Nature, vol. 507(7492), pages 389-391, March.
    9. Azoulay, Pierre & Bonatti, Alessandro & Krieger, Joshua L., 2017. "The career effects of scandal: Evidence from scientific retractions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(9), pages 1552-1569.
    10. Bart Vyncke & Tanja Perko & Baldwin Van Gorp, 2017. "Information Sources as Explanatory Variables for the Belgian Health‐Related Risk Perception of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 570-582, March.
    11. Nagarajan, Magesh & Shaw, Duncan & Albores, Pavel, 2012. "Disseminating a warning message to evacuate: A simulation study of the behaviour of neighbours," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 220(3), pages 810-819.
    12. Meyer, Bruce D, 1995. "Natural and Quasi-experiments in Economics," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 13(2), pages 151-161, April.
    13. Kelly, David L. & Letson, David & Nelson, Forrest & Nolan, David S. & Solís, Daniel, 2012. "Evolution of subjective hurricane risk perceptions: A Bayesian approach," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 644-663.
    14. Hemant K. Bhargava & Vidyanand Choudhary, 2004. "Economics of an Information Intermediary with Aggregation Benefits," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 15(1), pages 22-36, March.
    15. Richard Van Noorden, 2011. "Science publishing: The trouble with retractions," Nature, Nature, vol. 478(7367), pages 26-28, October.
    16. Cox, Adam & Craig, Russell & Tourish, Dennis, 2018. "Retraction statements and research malpractice in economics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5), pages 924-935.
    17. Furman, Jeffrey L. & Jensen, Kyle & Murray, Fiona, 2012. "Governing knowledge in the scientific community: Exploring the role of retractions in biomedicine," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 276-290.
    18. Ginger Zhe Jin & Benjamin Jones & Susan Feng Lu & Brian Uzzi, 2019. "The Reverse Matthew Effect: Consequences of Retraction in Scientific Teams," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 101(3), pages 492-506, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bor Luen Tang, 2023. "Some Insights into the Factors Influencing Continuous Citation of Retracted Scientific Papers," Publications, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-14, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tariq Ahmad Shah & Sumeer Gul & Saimah Bashir & Suhail Ahmad & Assumpció Huertas & Andrea Oliveira & Farzana Gulzar & Ashaq Hussain Najar & Kanu Chakraborty, 2021. "Influence of accessibility (open and toll-based) of scholarly publications on retractions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 4589-4606, June.
    2. Eleonora Alabrese, 2022. "Bad Science: Retractions and Media Coverage," CESifo Working Paper Series 10195, CESifo.
    3. Salim Moussa, 2022. "The propagation of error: retracted articles in marketing and their citations," Italian Journal of Marketing, Springer, vol. 2022(1), pages 11-36, March.
    4. Horton, Joanne & Krishna Kumar, Dhanya & Wood, Anthony, 2020. "Detecting academic fraud using Benford law: The case of Professor James Hunton," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(8).
    5. Lingzi Feng & Junpeng Yuan & Liying Yang, 2020. "An observation framework for retracted publications in multiple dimensions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1445-1457, November.
    6. Salandra, Rossella, 2018. "Knowledge dissemination in clinical trials: Exploring influences of institutional support and type of innovation on selective reporting," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(7), pages 1215-1228.
    7. Caroline Lievore & Priscila Rubbo & Celso Biynkievycz Santos & Claudia Tânia Picinin & Luiz Alberto Pilatti, 2021. "Research ethics: a profile of retractions from world class universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(8), pages 6871-6889, August.
    8. Walsh, John P. & Lee, You-Na & Tang, Li, 2019. "Pathogenic organization in science: Division of labor and retractions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 444-461.
    9. Mohan, Vijay, 2019. "On the use of blockchain-based mechanisms to tackle academic misconduct," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    10. Hussinger, Katrin & Pellens, Maikel, 2019. "Guilt by association: How scientific misconduct harms prior collaborators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 516-530.
    11. Liu, Xiaojuan & Wang, Chenlin & Chen, Dar-Zen & Huang, Mu-Hsuan, 2022. "Exploring perception of retraction based on mentioned status in post-retraction citations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3).
    12. Frederique Bordignon, 2020. "Self-correction of science: a comparative study of negative citations and post-publication peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1225-1239, August.
    13. Judit Bar-Ilan & Gali Halevi, 2018. "Temporal characteristics of retracted articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1771-1783, September.
    14. Gilles Grolleau & Naoufel Mzoughi, 2022. "How research institutions can make the best of scandals – once they become unavoidable," Post-Print hal-03908837, HAL.
    15. Kiri, Bralind & Lacetera, Nicola & Zirulia, Lorenzo, 2018. "Above a swamp: A theory of high-quality scientific production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5), pages 827-839.
    16. Mueller-Langer, Frank & Fecher, Benedikt & Harhoff, Dietmar & Wagner, Gert G., 2019. "Replication studies in economics—How many and which papers are chosen for replication, and why?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 62-83.
    17. Jacqueline Leta & Kizi Araujo & Stephanie Treiber, 2022. "Citing documents of Wakefield’s retracted article: the domino effect of authors and journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7333-7349, December.
    18. Azoulay, Pierre & Bonatti, Alessandro & Krieger, Joshua L., 2017. "The career effects of scandal: Evidence from scientific retractions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(9), pages 1552-1569.
    19. Rainer Widmann & Michael E. Rose & Marina Chugunova, 2023. "Allegations of Sexual Misconduct, Accused Scientists, and Their Research," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 419, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    20. Emma Bilbrey & Natalie O'Dell & Jonathan Creamer, 2014. "A Novel Rubric for Rating the Quality of Retraction Notices," Publications, MDPI, vol. 2(1), pages 1-13, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:52:y:2023:i:7:s0048733323000999. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.