Affiliation:
1. School of Information Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign IL, USA
Abstract
Abstract
We present the first database-wide 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., preretraction and postretraction), 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 postretraction citation contexts shows that retraction did not change the way the retracted papers were cited. Furthermore, among the 13,252 postretraction 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 postretraction citations in biomedicine do not document the retraction.
Funder
U.S. National Library of Medicine
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
Reference70 articles.
1. Automatically classifying the role of citations in biomedical articles;Agarwal,2010
2. Retractions and expressions of concern;AMA Manual of Style Committee,2020
3. Post retraction citations in context: A case study;Bar-Ilan;Scientometrics,2017
4. Temporal characteristics of retracted articles;Bar-Ilan;Scientometrics,2018
Cited by
24 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