Abstract
We investigate the citation frequency of retracted scientific papers in science. For the period of five years before and after retraction, we counted the citations to papers in a sample of over 3,000 retracted, and a matched sample of another 3,000 non-retracted papers. Retraction led to a decrease in average annual citation frequency from about 5 before, to 2 citations after retraction. In contrast, for non-retracted control papers the citation counts were 4, and 5, respectively. Put differently, we found only a limited effect of retraction: retraction decreased citation frequency only by about 60%, as compared to non-retracted papers. Thus, retracted papers often live on. For effective self-correction the scientific enterprise needs to be more effective in removing retracted papers from the scientific record. We discuss recent proposals to do so.
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Reference48 articles.
1. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications;F.C. Fang;Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci,2012
2. What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about science publishing’s ‘Death penalty’;Brainard;Science,2018
3. Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988–2008;E. Wager;J. Med. Ethics,2011
4. Trends and characteristics of retracted articles in the biomedical literature, 1971–2020;M. Gaudino;JAMA Intern. Med,2021
5. Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign;D. Fanelli;PLoS Medicine,2013
Cited by
6 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献