IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v125y2020i3d10.1007_s11192-020-03631-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Continued post-retraction citation of a fraudulent clinical trial report, 11 years after it was retracted for falsifying data

Author

Listed:
  • Jodi Schneider

    (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)

  • Di Ye

    (Columbia University
    University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)

  • Alison M. Hill

    (University of South Australia)

  • Ashley S. Whitehorn

    (University of South Australia
    University of Adelaide)

Abstract

This paper presents a case study of long-term post-retraction citation to falsified clinical trial data (Matsuyama et al. in Chest 128(6):3817–3827, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.128.6.3817 ), demonstrating problems with how the current digital library environment communicates retraction status. Eleven years after its retraction, the paper continues to be cited positively and uncritically to support a medical nutrition intervention, without mention of its 2008 retraction for falsifying data. To date no high quality clinical trials reporting on the efficacy of omega-3 fatty acids on reducing inflammatory markers have been published. Our paper uses network analysis, citation context analysis, and retraction status visibility analysis to illustrate the potential for extended propagation of misinformation over a citation network, updating and extending a case study of the first 6 years of post-retraction citation (Fulton et al. in Publications 3(1):7–26, 2015. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications3010017 ). The current study covers 148 direct citations from 2006 through 2019 and their 2542 second-generation citations and assesses retraction status visibility of the case study paper and its retraction notice on 12 digital platforms as of 2020. The retraction is not mentioned in 96% (107/112) of direct post-retraction citations for which we were able to conduct citation context analysis. Over 41% (44/107) of direct post-retraction citations that do not mention the retraction describe the case study paper in detail, giving a risk of diffusing misinformation from the case paper. We analyze 152 second-generation citations to the most recent 35 direct citations (2010–2019) that do not mention the retraction but do mention methods or results of the case paper, finding 23 possible diffusions of misinformation from these non-direct citations to the case paper. Link resolving errors from databases show a significant challenge in a reader reaching the retraction notice via a database search. Only 1/8 databases (and 1/9 database records) consistently resolved the retraction notice to its full-text correctly in our tests. Although limited to evaluation of a single case (N = 1), this work demonstrates how retracted research can continue to spread and how the current information environment contributes to this problem.

Suggested Citation

  • Jodi Schneider & Di Ye & Alison M. Hill & Ashley S. Whitehorn, 2020. "Continued post-retraction citation of a fraudulent clinical trial report, 11 years after it was retracted for falsifying data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2877-2913, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:125:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03631-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03631-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-020-03631-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-020-03631-1?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. K. Brad Wray & Line Edslev Andersen, 2018. "Retractions in Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 2009-2019, December.
    2. 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.
    3. Carol Ann Kochan & John M. Budd, 1992. "The persistence of fraud in the literature: The Darsee case," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 43(7), pages 488-493, August.
    4. Gabriel M. Peterson, 2013. "Characteristics of retracted open access biomedical literature: A bibliographic analysis," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(12), pages 2428-2436, December.
    5. Ashley S. Fulton & Alison M. Coates & Marie T. Williams & Peter R.C. Howe & Alison M. Hill, 2015. "Persistent Citation of the Only Published Randomised Controlled Trial of Omega-3 Supplementation in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Six Years after Its Retraction," Publications, MDPI, vol. 3(1), pages 1-10, February.
    6. Lutz Bornmann & K. Brad Wray & Robin Haunschild, 2020. "Citation concept analysis (CCA): a new form of citation analysis revealing the usefulness of concepts for other researchers illustrated by exemplary case studies including classic books by Thomas S. K," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(2), pages 1051-1074, February.
    7. Marion Schmidt, 2018. "An analysis of the validity of retraction annotation in pubmed and the web of science," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 69(2), pages 318-328, February.
    8. Chaomei Chen & Zhigang Hu & Jared Milbank & Timothy Schultz, 2013. "A visual analytic study of retracted articles in scientific literature," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 234-253, February.
    9. Lutz Bornmann & K. Brad Wray & Robin Haunschild, 2020. "Correction to: Citation concept analysis (CCA): a new form of citation analysis revealing the usefulness of concepts for other researchers illustrated by exemplary case studies including classic books," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2737-2737, September.
    10. James K. Wetterer, 2006. "Quotation error, citation copying, and ant extinctions in Madeira," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 67(3), pages 351-372, June.
    11. Adam Marcus & Ivan Oransky, 2011. "The paper is not sacred," Nature, Nature, vol. 480(7378), pages 449-450, December.
    12. Gabriel M. Peterson, 2013. "Characteristics of retracted open access biomedical literature: A bibliographic analysis," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(12), pages 2428-2436, December.
    13. Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva & Helmar Bornemann-Cimenti, 2017. "Why do some retracted papers continue to be cited?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(1), pages 365-370, January.
    14. 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.
    15. Chaomei Chen & Zhigang Hu & Jared Milbank & Timothy Schultz, 2013. "A visual analytic study of retracted articles in scientific literature," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 234-253, February.
    16. Judit Bar-Ilan & Gali Halevi, 2018. "Temporal characteristics of retracted articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1771-1783, September.
    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. María Núñez-Núñez & Naomi Cano-Ibáñez & Javier Zamora & Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas & Khalid Saeed Khan, 2023. "Assessing the Integrity of Clinical Trials Included in Evidence Syntheses," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(12), pages 1-13, June.
    2. Tom Coupé & W. Robert Reed & Christian Zimmerman, 2021. "Paving the Road for Replications: Experimental Results from an Online Research Repository," Working Papers in Economics 21/09, University of Canterbury, Department of Economics and Finance.
    3. Frederique Bordignon, 2022. "Critical citations in knowledge construction and citation analysis: from paradox to definition," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(2), pages 959-972, February.
    4. Ivan Heibi & Silvio Peroni, 2021. "A qualitative and quantitative analysis of open citations to retracted articles: the Wakefield 1998 et al.'s case," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(10), pages 8433-8470, October.
    5. Tom Coupé & W. Robert Reed, 2021. "Do Negative Replications Affect Citations?," Working Papers in Economics 21/14, University of Canterbury, Department of Economics and Finance.
    6. Eleonora Alabrese, 2022. "Bad Science: Retractions and Media Coverage," CESifo Working Paper Series 10195, CESifo.
    7. Gonzalo Marco-Cuenca & José Antonio Salvador-Oliván & Rosario Arquero-Avilés, 2021. "Fraud in scientific publications in the European Union. An analysis through their retractions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 5143-5164, June.
    8. Guangwei Hu & Shaoxiong Brian Xu, 2023. "Why Research Retraction Due to Misconduct Should Be Stigmatized," Publications, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-2, March.
    9. Geoff Frampton & Lois Woods & David Alexander Scott, 2021. "Inconsistent and incomplete retraction of published research: A cross-sectional study on Covid-19 retractions and recommendations to mitigate risks for research, policy and practice," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(10), pages 1-22, 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. 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.
    2. Ivan Heibi & Silvio Peroni, 2021. "A qualitative and quantitative analysis of open citations to retracted articles: the Wakefield 1998 et al.'s case," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(10), pages 8433-8470, October.
    3. 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.
    4. Behzad Gholampour & Sajad Gholampour & Alireza Noruzi & Clément Arsenault & Thomas Haertlé & Ali Akbar Saboury, 2022. "Retracted articles in oncology in the last three decades: frequency, reasons, and themes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 1841-1865, April.
    5. Qin Zhang & Juneman Abraham & Hui-Zhen Fu, 2020. "Collaboration and its influence on retraction based on retracted publications during 1978–2017," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 213-232, October.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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).
    9. Judit Bar-Ilan & Gali Halevi, 2018. "Temporal characteristics of retracted articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1771-1783, September.
    10. 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.
    11. Judit Dobránszki & Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, 2019. "Corrective factors for author- and journal-based metrics impacted by citations to accommodate for retractions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 387-398, October.
    12. Matan Shelomi, 2014. "Editorial Misconduct—Definition, Cases, and Causes," Publications, MDPI, vol. 2(2), pages 1-10, April.
    13. Sergio Copiello, 2020. "Other than detecting impact in advance, alternative metrics could act as early warning signs of retractions: tentative findings of a study into the papers retracted by PLoS ONE," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2449-2469, December.
    14. K. Brad Wray, 2020. "Paradigms in Structure: finally, a count," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 823-828, October.
    15. Tom Coupé & W. Robert Reed, 2021. "Do Negative Replications Affect Citations?," Working Papers in Economics 21/14, University of Canterbury, Department of Economics and Finance.
    16. 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.
    17. Naif Radi Aljohani & Ayman Fayoumi & Saeed-Ul Hassan, 2021. "An in-text citation classification predictive model for a scholarly search system," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 5509-5529, July.
    18. Kiran Sharma, 2021. "Team size and retracted citations reveal the patterns of retractions from 1981 to 2020," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(10), pages 8363-8374, October.
    19. 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).
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Retraction; Post-retraction citation; Misinformation; Problems with bibliographic libraries; Problematic citation; Diffusion studies; Citation context analysis; Link resolver errors; Case study;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • O30 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - General
    • L86 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Information and Internet Services; Computer Software

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:scient:v:125:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03631-1. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.