Post retraction citations in context: a case study

Abstract

This study examines the nature of citations to articles that were retracted in 2014. Out of 987 retracted articles found in ScienceDirect, an Elsevier full text database, we selected all articles that received more than 10 citations between January 2015 and March 2016. Since the retraction year was known for only about 83% of the retracted articles, we chose to concentrate on recent citations, that for certain appeared after the cited paper was retracted. Overall, we analyzed 238 citing documents and identified the context of each citation as positive, negative or neutral. Our results show that the vast majority of citations to retracted articles are positive despite of the clear retraction notice on the publisher’s platform and regardless of the reason for retraction. Positive citations can be also seen to articles that were retracted due to ethical misconduct, data fabrication and false reports. In light of these results, we listed some recommendations for publishers that could potentially minimize the referral to retracted studies as valid.

The limitations of retraction notices and the heroic acts of authors who correct the scholarly record: An analysis of retractions of papers published from 1975 to 2019

“…Indeed, according to Neale, Dailey, and Abrams (), just less than 5% of citations to retracted articles show no awareness of the retraction notice or related misconduct – a small but still worrying percentage. Additional analyses have also confirmed the rise in citations of retracted articles, regardless of whether there are clear retraction notices and the reason for retraction, such as in cases of ethical misconduct, data fabrication, and false reports (Bar‐Ilan & Halevi, ; Korpela, ; Madlock‐Brown & Eichmann, ; Redman, Yarandi, & Merz, ). What is equally troubling are the findings that there are positive correlations between self‐citations and retraction citations (Madlock‐Brown & Eichmann, ), as well as between pre‐retraction citations and post‐retraction citations (Cokol et al ., ).…”

Systematic examination of pre‐ and post‐retraction citations

“…Ego‐network analysis shows decreasing trends in citations post‐retraction (Bornemann‐Cimenti et al, ), but also that these citations still recognized AR “positively” (Bar‐Ilan & Halevi, ) as legitimate work. We also found that citations post‐retraction came from articles affiliated with a different country than the AR .…”

“…Nevertheless, the continued circulation of retracted articles poses significant risks to the integrity of scientific research as honest and reliable works. (Bar-Ilan & Halevi, 2017;Da Silva & Bornemann-Cimenti, 2017).…”

ReTracker: Actively and automatically matching retraction metadata in zotero

“…However, papers continue to be cited after retraction, sometimes at a higher rate than before retraction (Bar‐Ilan & Halevi, ; Da Silva & Bornemann‐Cimenti, ; Dong, Loh, & Mondry, ). Even fraudulent papers continue to accrue citations.…”

“…Other studies have found that post‐retraction citation is mostly positive, and rarely signals the retraction. For instance, bibliographies almost never indicated the retractions in Bar‐Ilan & Halevi's study of 238 post‐retraction citations to 15 papers across disciplines, and only 12 (5%) of these 238 post‐retraction citations were negative [Bar‐Ilan & Halevi, ].…”