Self-correction in science: The effect of retraction on the frequency of citations

Kühberger, Anton; Streit, Daniel; Scherndl, Thomas

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0277814

Cited by 13 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some eligible articles may be excluded if they meet at least one of the previously defined exclusion criteria. Considering the wide variation in the propagation of retractions, which can lead to retracted articles being cited and considered in studies, it is crucial to practice retractions checking [ 44 ]. Therefore, the eligible studies that are included in the systematic review will be carefully examined using the Scite–an acronym for “Smart citation index”, available online ( https://scite.ai/ ) [ 45 ]–to confirm the validity of the evidence and identify any retraction records [ 41 , 45 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors influencing the work of researchers in Scientific Initiation: A systematic review protocol

Costa,

Fernandes,

Memon

et al. 2024

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Scientific Initiation (SI) is an educational activity that allows students to begin their scientific training and research under the guidance of an experienced researcher. While several studies have examined students’ perceptions of SI, research on the perspective of researchers working in this field is currently lacking. Thus, this study’s aim is to describe the protocol design for conducting a systematic review. At the same time, the review aims also to identify factors influencing the work of researchers in SI and explore the motivations leading researchers to engage in research projects within institutions and their respective impacts. Method and analyses Literature search will be done using the bibliographic databases, including Academic Search Premier, APA PsycNet, CINAHL Plus, ERIC, SocINDEX, Scopus, and Web of Science. The search strategy was guided by the PICo framework (Population, phenomenon of Interest, and Context). The preparation and development of this protocol following guidelines were employed: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015), Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies 2015 (PRESS 2015), and PRISMA-Search (PRISMA-S). Original, peer-reviewed articles that examine the factors related to the work of researchers in SI will be included without any language or publication date restrictions. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies will be screened by two independent researchers. The included studies will be analyzed to identify factors, policies, and their impacts obtained analytically. Findings will be objectively categorized and synthetically represented through figures, diagrams, and graphic models. The risk of bias will be assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) and the Downs and Black checklists. A third senior reviewer will resolve any discrepancies. Discussion We aim to understand the factors that drive researchers to engage in SI research through the dissemination of the findings of this systematic review. This may aid the development of institutional strategies and actions that can support the enhancement of SI programs and encourage greater researcher participation.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors influencing the work of researchers in Scientific Initiation: A systematic review protocol

Costa,

Fernandes,

Memon

et al. 2024

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The longer it takes to retract an article allows more time for the research to be cited, spreading the potentially inaccurate information through the literature. Studies show that even after retraction, articles continue to be cited (Al-Ghareeb et al, 2018;De Cassai et al, 2022;Khademizadeh et al, 2023;Kühberger et al, 2022;Wadhwa et al, 2021;Xu et al, 2023). In a study of 840 retracted articles, Khademizadeh et al (2023) found that these publications were cited 5659 times in other research articles, with 1559 (27.5%) of the citations occurring postretraction including being shared on Twitter and other online platforms.…”

Section: Citations Of Retracted Articlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An examination of retracted articles in nursing literature

Nicoll,

Carter‐Templeton,

Oermann

et al. 2023

J of Nursing Scholarship

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe output of scholarly publications in scientific literature has increased exponentially in recent years. This increase in literature has been accompanied by an increase in retractions. Although some of these may be attributed to publishing errors, many are the result of unsavory research practices. The purposes of this study were to identify the number of retracted articles in nursing and reasons for the retractions, analyze the retraction notices, and determine the length of time for an article in nursing to be retracted.DesignThis was an exploratory study.MethodsA search of PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Retraction Watch databases was conducted to identify retracted articles in nursing and their retraction notices.ResultsBetween 1997 and 2022, 123 articles published in the nursing literature were retracted. Ten different reasons for retraction were used to categorize these articles with one‐third of the retractions (n = 37, 30.1%) not specifying a reason. Sixty‐eight percent (n = 77) were retracted because of an actual or a potential ethical concern: duplicate publication, data issues, plagiarism, authorship issues, and copyright.ConclusionNurses rely on nursing‐specific scholarly literature as evidence for clinical decisions. The findings demonstrated that retractions are increasing within published nursing literature. In addition, it was evident that retraction notices do not prevent previously published work from being cited. This study addressed a gap in knowledge about article retractions specific to nursing.

show abstract

“…By some estimates, research waste is considered to constitute up to 85% of biomedical science output [40]. Even when retracted, these nowphantom publications can remain highly cited in the literature long after their credibility has decayed [41][42][43][44][45][46][47], and citations to retracted publications are rarely critical [48,49].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is biomedical research self-correcting? Modelling insights on the persistence of spurious science

Grimes

2024

R. Soc. Open Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The reality that volumes of published biomedical research are not reproducible is an increasingly recognized problem. Spurious results reduce trustworthiness of reported science, increasing research waste. While science should be self-correcting from a philosophical perspective, that in insolation yields no information on efforts required to nullify suspect findings or factors shaping how quickly science may be corrected. There is also a paucity of information on how perverse incentives in the publishing ecosystem favouring novel positive findings over null results shape the ability of published science to self-correct. Knowledge of factors shaping self-correction of science remain obscure, limiting our ability to mitigate harms. This modelling study introduces a simple model to capture dynamics of the publication ecosystem, exploring factors influencing research waste, trustworthiness, corrective effort and time to correction. Results from this work indicate that research waste and corrective effort are highly dependent on field-specific false positive rates and time delays to corrective results to spurious findings are propagated. The model also suggests conditions under which biomedical science is self-correcting and those under which publication of correctives alone cannot stem propagation of untrustworthy results. Finally, this work models a variety of potential mitigation strategies, including researcher- and publisher-driven interventions.

show abstract

Self-correction in science: The effect of retraction on the frequency of citations

Cited by 13 publications

References 47 publications

Factors influencing the work of researchers in Scientific Initiation: A systematic review protocol

Factors influencing the work of researchers in Scientific Initiation: A systematic review protocol

An examination of retracted articles in nursing literature

Is biomedical research self-correcting? Modelling insights on the persistence of spurious science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About