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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nadia Elia & Elizabeth Wager & Martin R Tramèr, 2014. "Fate of Articles That Warranted Retraction Due to Ethical Concerns: A Descriptive Cross-Sectional Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(1), pages 1-8, January.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    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)

    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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (plosone). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.