IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0217918.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Post retraction citations among manuscripts reporting a radiology-imaging diagnostic method

Author

Listed:
  • Sorana D Bolboacă
  • Diana-Victoria Buhai
  • Maria Aluaș
  • Adriana E Bulboacă

Abstract

Our study aimed to evaluate the trends of post retraction citations of articles reporting a radiology-imaging diagnostic method and to find if a different pattern exists between manuscripts reporting an ultrasound method and those reporting other radiology diagnostic methods. This study reviewed retractions stored in PubMed on the subject of radiology-imaging diagnosis to identify the motivation, time from publication to retraction, and citations before and after retraction. The PubMed database was searched on June 2017 to retrieve the retracted articles, and the Scopus database was screened to identify the post-retraction citations. The full text was screened to see the type of post-retraction citation (positive/negative) and whether the cited article appears or not as retracted. One hundred and two retractions were identified, representing 3.5% of the retracted articles indexed by PubMed, out of which 54 were included in the analysis. Half of the articles were retracted in the first 24 months after publication, and the number of post retraction citations was higher than the number of citations before retraction in 30 out of 54 cases (US methods: 9/20, other diagnostic methods 21/34, P-value = 0.2312). The plagiarism was the most common reason for retraction (31%), followed by repetitive publication (26%), and errors in data/manuscript (24%). In less than 2% of cases, the retracted articles appear as retracted in the text or reference list, while the negative citation is observed in 4.84% among manuscripts reporting an US diagnostic method and 0.32% among manuscripts reporting a diagnostic method other than US (P-value = 0.0004). No significant differences were observed when post retraction weighted citation index (WCI, no. of citations weighted by citation window) was compared to WCI prior retraction (P-value = 0.5972). In light of the reported results, we enumerated some recommendations that could potentially minimize the referral to retracted studies as valid.

Suggested Citation

  • Sorana D Bolboacă & Diana-Victoria Buhai & Maria Aluaș & Adriana E Bulboacă, 2019. "Post retraction citations among manuscripts reporting a radiology-imaging diagnostic method," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-14, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0217918
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217918
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0217918
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0217918&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0217918?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Juan Xie & Kaile Gong & Ying Cheng & Qing Ke, 2019. "The correlation between paper length and citations: a meta-analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 763-786, March.
    2. 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.
    3. Alexander Ivanov & Beata A Kaczkowska & Saadat A Khan & Jean Ho & Morteza Tavakol & Ashok Prasad & Geetha Bhumireddy & Allan F Beall & Igor Klem & Parag Mehta & William M Briggs & Terrence J Sacchi & , 2017. "Review and Analysis of Publication Trends over Three Decades in Three High Impact Medicine Journals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-11, January.
    4. Juan Miguel Campanario, 2000. "Fraud: retracted articles are still being cited," Nature, Nature, vol. 408(6810), pages 288-288, November.
    5. Iman Tahamtan & Askar Safipour Afshar & Khadijeh Ahamdzadeh, 2016. "Factors affecting number of citations: a comprehensive review of the literature," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(3), pages 1195-1225, June.
    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. Pratibha Sharma & Bhavya Sharma & Asad Reza & Krishna Kishore Inampudi & Rajinder K Dhamija, 2023. "A systematic review of retractions in biomedical research publications: reasons for retractions and their citations in Indian affiliations," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-12, December.

    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. Kaile Gong, 2023. "The influence of discipline consistency between papers and published journals on citations: an analysis of Chinese papers in three social science disciplines," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(5), pages 3129-3146, May.
    2. Stefano Mammola & Elena Piano & Alberto Doretto & Enrico Caprio & Dan Chamberlain, 2022. "Measuring the influence of non-scientific features on citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(7), pages 4123-4137, July.
    3. Salandra, Rossella & Criscuolo, Paola & Salter, Ammon, 2021. "Directing scientists away from potentially biased publications: the role of systematic reviews in health care," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    4. Hongquan Shen & Juan Xie & Jiang Li & Ying Cheng, 2021. "The correlation between scientific collaboration and citation count at the paper level: a meta-analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3443-3470, April.
    5. Eitan Frachtenberg, 2022. "Multifactor Citation Analysis over Five Years: A Case Study of SIGMETRICS Papers," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-16, December.
    6. Hussinger, Katrin & Pellens, Maikel, 2019. "Guilt by association: How scientific misconduct harms prior collaborators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 516-530.
    7. Nina Sakinah Ahmad Rofaie & Seuk Wai Phoong & Muzalwana Abdul Talib & Ainin Sulaiman, 2023. "Light-emitting diode (LED) research: A bibliometric analysis during 2003–2018," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(1), pages 173-191, February.
    8. Cristina López-Duarte & Jane F. Maley & Marta M. Vidal-Suárez, 2021. "Main challenges to international student mobility in the European arena," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(11), pages 8957-8980, November.
    9. Hongxia Jin & Lu Lu & Haojun Fan, 2022. "Global Trends and Research Hotspots in Long COVID: A Bibliometric Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-14, March.
    10. Abramo, Giovanni & D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Di Costa, Flavia, 2021. "The scholarly impact of private sector research: A multivariate analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    11. Gallego-Losada, María-Jesús & Montero-Navarro, Antonio & García-Abajo, Elisa & Gallego-Losada, Rocío, 2023. "Digital financial inclusion. Visualizing the academic literature," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    12. Lilian Cervo Cabrera & Carlos Eduardo Caldarelli & Marcia Regina Gabardo Camara, 2020. "Mapping collaboration in international coffee certification research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2597-2618, September.
    13. Giuseppe La Torre & Remigio Bova & Rosario Andrea Cocchiara & Cristina Sestili & Anna Tagliaferri & Simona Maggiacomo & Camilla Foschi & William Zomparelli & Maria Vittoria Manai & David Shaholli & Va, 2023. "What Are the Determinants of the Quality of Systematic Reviews in the International Journals of Occupational Medicine? A Methodological Study Review of Published Literature," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-12, January.
    14. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D'Angelo & Flavia Di Costa, 2020. "The relative impact of private research on scientific advancement," Papers 2012.04908, arXiv.org.
    15. Peter Sjögårde & Fereshteh Didegah, 2022. "The association between topic growth and citation impact of research publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 1903-1921, April.
    16. Chen, Ying & Koch, Thorsten & Zakiyeva, Nazgul & Liu, Kailiang & Xu, Zhitong & Chen, Chun-houh & Nakano, Junji & Honda, Keisuke, 2023. "Article’s scientific prestige: Measuring the impact of individual articles in the web of science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1).
    17. Bergemann, Dirk & Ottaviani, Marco, 2021. "Information Markets and Nonmarkets," CEPR Discussion Papers 16459, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    18. Priya Shah & Richa Singh Dubey & Shashikant Rai & Douglas W. S. Renwick & Saurabh Misra, 2024. "Green human resource management: A comprehensive investigation using bibliometric analysis," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(1), pages 31-53, January.
    19. 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.
    20. Javier Martínez-Vega & David Rodríguez-Rodríguez, 2022. "Protected Area Effectiveness in the Scientific Literature: A Decade-Long Bibliometric Analysis," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-14, June.

    More about this item

    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:plo:pone00:0217918. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.