Exploring the Influence of Publication Retraction on Citations in Psychology Science

Yang, Siluo; Qi, Fan; Diao, Heyu

doi:10.1145/3383583.3398583

Cited by 4 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast to large-scale studies, citation analyses of retracted papers in a particular field are abundant ( Bolboacă, Buhai et al, 2019 ; Dal-Ré & Ayuso, 2020 ; Hamilton, 2019 ; Madhugiri, Nagella, & Uppar, 2021 ; Pantziarka & Meheus, 2019 ; Rubbo et al, 2019 ; Theis-Mahon & Bakker, 2020 ; Yang et al, 2020 ). For example, Madhugiri et al (2021) examined citations to 191 retracted papers in clinical neurosurgery as well as in allied clinical and basic science specialties.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some studies examined the tone (positive, negative, and neutral) of each citation context ( Bar-Ilan & Halevi, 2017 ; Kochan & Budd, 1992 ; Theis-Mahon & Bakker, 2020 ; Yang et al, 2020 ). Bar-Ilan and Halevi (2017) described how 15 retracted articles were mentioned in 238 citing documents after being retracted.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies of citation counts and citation networks have been limited to showing the existence and quantity of postretraction citations: How retracted papers were cited in the full-text articles was underexplored. Studies that explored full-text articles mainly focused on the acknowledgment of retraction shown in citation contexts ( Budd, Coble, & Abritis, 2016 ; Neale, Dailey, & Abrams, 2010 ; Piller, 2021 ; Schneider et al, 2020 ; Suelzer et al, 2019 ) and the tone (positive, negative, and neutral) of each context ( Bar-Ilan & Halevi, 2017 ; Hamilton, 2019 ; Theis-Mahon & Bakker, 2020 ; Yang, Qi, & Diao, 2020 ). Furthermore, to the best of our knowledge, Budd et al (2016) is the only study covering citation contexts of retracted papers at scale, but they only examined the acknowledgment of retraction shown in citations to 265 papers in MEDLINE retracted between 2001 and 2005.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast to large-scale studies, citation analyses of retracted papers in a particular field are 100 abundant (Bolboacă et al, 2019;Dal-Ré & Ayuso, 2020;Hamilton, 2019;Madhugiri et al, 2021;101 Pantziarka & Meheus, 2019;Rubbo et al, 2019;Theis-Mahon & Bakker, 2020;Yang et al, 2020).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Interestingly, studies on infamous, high-profile retracted papers (Bornemann-Cimenti et al, 2016;Piller, 2021;Suelzer et al, 2019) found higher rates of citations acknowledging retractions. Some studies examined the tone (positive, negative, and neutral) of each citation context (Bar-Ilan 169 & Halevi, 2017;Kochan & Budd, 1992;Theis-Mahon & Bakker, 2020;Yang et al, 2020). Ilan and Halevi (2017) described how 15 retracted articles were mentioned in 238 citing 171 documents after being retracted.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Continued use of retracted papers: Temporal trends in citations and (lack of) awareness of retractions shown in citation contexts in biomedicine

Hsiao

Schneider

2021

Quantitative Science Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Continued use of retracted papers: Temporal trends in citations and (lack of) awareness of retractions shown in citation contexts in biomedicine

Hsiao

Schneider

2021

Quantitative Science Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Disinformation in Science: Ethical Considerations for Citing Retracted Works

Million,

Budd

2024

Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses the ethical implications of citing retracted biomedical literature, particularly in the context of spreading misinformation within scholarly discourse. It examines the responsibility of scientists to combat disinformation and uphold ethical standards in their research practices. To guide our discussion, we studied citations of the most often cited retracted works containing disinformation in Web of Science. Our findings confirm prior research and demonstrate that most citations to retracted papers reference them to bolster arguments or use methodologies without acknowledging their status. We conclude by interpreting our findings through a framework of moral obligation and argue that scientists have a special responsibility to combat disinformation, which may harm others. Cognitive authorities, namely scientists, citing invalid publications may perpetuate false beliefs and erode trust in scientific integrity.

show abstract