IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jpubli/v11y2023i4p47-d1255598.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Some Insights into the Factors Influencing Continuous Citation of Retracted Scientific Papers

Author

Listed:
  • Bor Luen Tang

    (Department of Biochemistry, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117596, Singapore)

Abstract

Once retracted, the citation count of a research paper might be intuitively expected to drop precipitously. Here, we assessed the post-retraction citation of life and medical sciences papers from two top-ranked, multidisciplinary journals Nature and Science , from 2010 to 2018. Post-retraction citations accounted for a staggering 47.7% and 40.9% of total citations (median values), respectively, of the papers included in our analysis. These numbers are comparable with those from two journals with lower impact factors, and with retracted papers from the physical sciences discipline. A more qualitative assessment of five papers from the two journals with a high percentage (>50%) of post-retraction citations, all of which are associated with misconduct, reveal different contributing reasons and factors. Retracted papers associated with highly publicized misconduct cases are more prone to being cited with the retraction status indicated, or projected negatively (such as in the context of research ethics and misconduct discussions), with the latter also indicated by cross-disciplinary citations by humanities and social sciences articles. Retracted papers that retained significant validity in their main findings/conclusions may receive a large number of neutral citations that are somewhat blind to the retraction. Retracted papers in popular subject areas with massive publication outputs, particularly secondary publications such as reviews, may also have a high background citation noise. Our findings add further insights to the nature of post-retraction citations beyond the plain notion that these are largely made through sheer ignorance or negligence by the citing authors.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:11:y:2023:i:4:p:47-:d:1255598
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/11/4/47/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/11/4/47/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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).
    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. 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.
    4. Nicole Shu Ling Yeo-Teh & Bor Luen Tang, 2022. "Sustained Rise in Retractions in the Life Sciences Literature during the Pandemic Years 2020 and 2021," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-12, August.
    5. Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva & Judit Dobránszki, 2017. "Highly cited retracted papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(3), pages 1653-1661, March.
    6. Shane R. Mayack & Jennifer L. Shadrach & Francis S. Kim & Amy J. Wagers, 2010. "Retraction Note: Systemic signals regulate ageing and rejuvenation of blood stem cell niches," Nature, Nature, vol. 467(7317), pages 872-872, October.
    7. 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.
    8. Judit Bar-Ilan & Gali Halevi, 2018. "Temporal characteristics of retracted articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1771-1783, September.
    9. Monya Baker, 2016. "1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility," Nature, Nature, vol. 533(7604), pages 452-454, May.
    10. Madhu S. Kumar & Elena Armenteros-Monterroso & Philip East & Probir Chakravorty & Nik Matthews & Monte M. Winslow & Julian Downward, 2015. "Retraction Note: HMGA2 functions as a competing endogenous RNA to promote lung cancer progression," Nature, Nature, vol. 523(7560), pages 370-370, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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).
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva & Serhii Nazarovets, 2023. "Partial citation analysis of five classes of retracted papers, and devising a new four-tier citation classification system for retracted (and other) papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(8), pages 4887-4894, August.
    8. 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.
    9. Judit Bar-Ilan & Gali Halevi, 2018. "Temporal characteristics of retracted articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1771-1783, September.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva & Judit Dobránszki, 2018. "Multiple versions of the h-index: cautionary use for formal academic purposes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 1107-1113, May.
    14. Briony Swire-Thompson & David Lazer, 2022. "Reducing Health Misinformation in Science: A Call to Arms," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 700(1), pages 124-135, March.
    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. Peter Harremoës, 2019. "Replication Papers," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-8, July.
    17. Fernando Hoces de la Guardia & Sean Grant & Edward Miguel, 2021. "A framework for open policy analysis," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(2), pages 154-163.
    18. Antonella Lanati & Marinella Marzano & Caterina Manzari & Bruno Fosso & Graziano Pesole & Francesca De Leo, 2019. "Management at the service of research: ReOmicS, a quality management system for omics sciences," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-13, December.
    19. Joel Ferguson & Rebecca Littman & Garret Christensen & Elizabeth Levy Paluck & Nicholas Swanson & Zenan Wang & Edward Miguel & David Birke & John-Henry Pezzuto, 2023. "Survey of open science practices and attitudes in the social sciences," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-13, December.
    20. Erastus Karanja & Aditya Sharma & Ibrahim Salama, 2020. "What does MIS survey research reveal about diversity and representativeness in the MIS field? A content analysis approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(3), pages 1583-1628, March.

    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:gam:jpubli:v:11:y:2023:i:4:p:47-:d:1255598. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.