We present the first database-wise study on the citation contexts of retracted papers, which covers 7,813 retracted papers indexed in PubMed, 169,434 citations collected from iCite, and 48,134 citation contexts identified from the XML version of the PubMed Central Open Access Subset. Compared with previous citation studies that focused on comparing citation counts using two time frames (i.e., pre-retraction and post-retraction), our analyses show the longitudinal trends of citations to retracted papers in the past 60 years (1960-2020). Our temporal analyses show that retracted papers continued to be cited, but that old retracted papers stopped being cited as time progressed. Analysis of the text progression of pre- and post-retraction citation contexts shows that retraction did not change the way the retracted papers were cited. Furthermore, among the 13,252 post-retraction citation contexts, only 722 (5.4%) citation contexts acknowledged the retraction. In these 722 citation contexts, the retracted papers were most commonly cited as related work or as an example of problematic science. Our findings deepen the understanding of why retraction does not stop citation and demonstrate that the vast majority of post-retraction citations in biomedicine do not document the retraction. Peer Review https://publons.com/publon/10.1162/qss_a_00155

Background Retraction is a mechanism for alerting readers to unreliable material and other problems in the published scientific and scholarly record. Retracted publications generally remain visible and searchable, but the intention of retraction is to mark them as “removed” from the citable record of scholarship. However, in practice, some retracted articles continue to be treated by researchers and the public as valid content as they are often unaware of the retraction. Research over the past decade has identified a number of factors contributing to the unintentional spread of retracted research. The goal of the Reducing the Inadvertent Spread of Retracted Science: Shaping a Research and Implementation Agenda (RISRS) project was to develop an actionable agenda for reducing the inadvertent spread of retracted science. This included identifying how retraction status could be more thoroughly disseminated, and determining what actions are feasible and relevant for particular stakeholders who play a role in the distribution of knowledge. Methods These recommendations were developed as part of a year-long process that included a scoping review of empirical literature and successive rounds of stakeholder consultation, culminating in a three-part online workshop that brought together a diverse body of 65 stakeholders in October–November 2020 to engage in collaborative problem solving and dialogue. Stakeholders held roles such as publishers, editors, researchers, librarians, standards developers, funding program officers, and technologists and worked for institutions such as universities, governmental agencies, funding organizations, publishing houses, libraries, standards organizations, and technology providers. Workshop discussions were seeded by materials derived from stakeholder interviews (N = 47) and short original discussion pieces contributed by stakeholders. The online workshop resulted in a set of recommendations to address the complexities of retracted research throughout the scholarly communications ecosystem. Results The RISRS recommendations are: (1) Develop a systematic cross-industry approach to ensure the public availability of consistent, standardized, interoperable, and timely information about retractions; (2) Recommend a taxonomy of retraction categories/classifications and corresponding retraction metadata that can be adopted by all stakeholders; (3) Develop best practices for coordinating the retraction process to enable timely, fair, unbiased outcomes; and (4) Educate stakeholders about pre- and post-publication stewardship, including retraction and correction of the scholarly record. Conclusions Our stakeholder engagement study led to 4 recommendations to address inadvertent citation of retracted research, and formation of a working group to develop the Communication of Retractions, Removals, and Expressions of Concern (CORREC) Recommended Practice. Further work will be needed to determine how well retractions are currently documented, how retraction of code and datasets impacts related publications, and to identify if retraction metadata (fails to) propagate. Outcomes of all this work should lead to ensuring retracted papers are never cited without awareness of the retraction, and that, in public fora outside of science, retracted papers are not treated as valid scientific outputs.

Citations between papers and patents indicate knowledge transfer between science and technology. This study discusses the function of paper‐to‐patent citations through citation contexts. 7,223 articles having at least one paper‐to‐patent citation are identified from a collection of 2.4 million PubMed Central open access articles. Within 429,698 references cited by the 7,223 articles, 11,165 (2.6%) are paper‐to‐patent citations, while 418,533 (97.4%) are paper‐to‐paper citations. In comparison to paper‐to‐paper citations, paper‐to‐patent citations were more concentrated at the beginning of articles. Higher proportions of patents are cited in the introduction and methods sections and are only cited once. The results indicate that patents are likely to be cited for providing background knowledge. The appearance of paper‐to‐patent citations in the method sections implies that patents might also contribute to the development of research methods.

OpCitance contains all the sentences from 2 million PubMed Central open-access (PMCOA) articles, with 137 million inline citations annotated (i.e., the “citation contexts”). Parsing out the references and citation contexts from the PMCOA XML files was non-trivial due to the diversity of referencing style. Only 0.5% citation contexts remain unidentified due to technical or human issues, e.g., references unmentioned by the authors in the text or improper XML nesting, which is more common among older articles (pre-2000). PubMed IDs (PMIDs) linked to inline citations in the XML files compared to citations harvested using the NCBI E-Utilities differed for 70.96% of the articles. Using an in-house citation matcher, called Patci, 6.84% of the referenced PMIDs were supplemented and corrected. OpCitance includes fewer total number of articles than the Semantic Scholar Open Research Corpus, but OpCitance has 160 thousand unique articles, a higher inline citation identification rate, and a more accurate reference mapping to PMIDs. We hope that OpCitance will facilitate citation context studies in particular and benefit text-mining research more broadly.

No abstract