IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v116y2018i3d10.1007_s11192-018-2802-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Temporal characteristics of retracted articles

Author

Listed:
  • Judit Bar-Ilan

    (Bar-Ilan University)

  • Gali Halevi

    (Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai)

Abstract

There are three main reasons for retraction: (1) ethical misconduct (e.g. duplicate publication, plagiarism, missing credit, no IRB, ownership issues, authorship issues, interference in the review process, citation manipulation); (2) scientific distortion (e.g. data manipulation, fraudulent data, unsupported conclusions, questionable data validity, non-replicability, data errors—even if unintended); (3) administrative error (e.g. article published in wrong issue, not the final version published, publisher errors). The first category, although highly deplorable has almost no effect on the advancement of science, the third category is relatively minor. The papers belonging to the second category are most troublesome from the scientific point of view, as they are misleading and have serious negative implications not only on science but also on society. In this paper, we explore some temporal characteristics of retracted articles, including time of publication, years to retract, growth of post retraction citations over time and social media attention by the three major categories. The data set comprises 995 retracted articles retrieved in October 2014 from Elsevier’s ScienceDirect. Citations and Mendeley reader counts were retrieved four times within 4 years, which allowed us to examine post-retraction longitudinal trends not only for citations, but also for Mendeley reader counts. The major findings are that both citation counts and Mendeley reader counts continue to grow after retraction.

Suggested Citation

  • Judit Bar-Ilan & Gali Halevi, 2018. "Temporal characteristics of retracted articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1771-1783, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:116:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-018-2802-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2802-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-018-2802-y
    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/s11192-018-2802-y?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. 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.
    2. R Grant Steen & Arturo Casadevall & Ferric C Fang, 2013. "Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-9, July.
    3. Praveen Chaddah, 2014. "Not all plagiarism requires a retraction," Nature, Nature, vol. 511(7508), pages 127-127, July.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    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. 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).
    2. 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.
    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. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Marion Schmidt, 2024. "Why do some retracted articles continue to get cited?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(12), pages 7535-7563, December.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    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. Metwaly Ali Mohamed Eldakar & Ahmed Maher Khafaga Shehata, 2023. "A bibliometric study of article retractions in technology fields in developing economies countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(11), pages 6047-6083, November.
    12. 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.
    13. Bhumika Bhatt, 2021. "A multi-perspective analysis of retractions in life sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 4039-4054, May.
    14. Valérie Mignon & Marc Joëts, 2025. "Slaying the Undead: How Long Does It Take to Kill Zombie Papers?," Working Papers hal-04940088, HAL.
    15. 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.
    16. Shaoxiong (Brian) Xu & Guangwei Hu, 2018. "Retraction Notices: Who Authored Them?," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-18, January.
    17. Istvan-Szilard Szilagyi & Gregor A. Schittek & Christoph Klivinyi & Holger Simonis & Torsten Ulrich & Helmar Bornemann-Cimenti, 2022. "Citation of retracted research: a case-controlled, ten-year follow-up scientometric analysis of Scott S. Reuben’s malpractice," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2611-2620, May.
    18. 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.
    19. Guangwei Hu & Shaoxiong Brian Xu, 2023. "Why Research Retraction Due to Misconduct Should Be Stigmatized," Publications, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-2, March.
    20. repec:plo:pbio00:3000117 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. 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.

    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:116:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-018-2802-y. 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.