ArticleScience and engineering ethics2010
Analysis of citations to biomedical articles affected by scientific misconduct.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Systematic review of retracted articles in critical care medicine.British journal of anaesthesia · 2022Pooled it
- Retracted publications and their citation in dental literature: A systematic review.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2020Pooled it
- Continued use of retracted papers: Temporal trends in citations and (lack of) awareness of retractions shown in citation contexts in biomedicine.Quantitative science studies · 2022Article
- Article
- Retracted articles in rehabilitation: just the tip of the iceberg? A bibliometric analysis.Archives of physiotherapy · 2020Review
- Reproducible research into human chemical communication by cues and pheromones: learning from psychology's renaissance.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2020Review
- The visibility of scientific misconduct: A review of the literature on retracted journal articles.Current sociology. La Sociologie contemporaine · 2017Review
- Concern noted: A descriptive study of editorial expressions of concern in PubMed and PubMed Central.Research integrity and peer review · 2017Article
- Post retraction citations in context: a case study.Scientometrics · 2017Article
- Propagation of errors in citation networks: a study involving the entire citation network of a widely cited paper published in, and later retracted from, the journal Nature.Research integrity and peer review · 2016Article
- Preserving the Integrity of Citations and References by All Stakeholders of Science Communication.Journal of Korean medical science · 2015Review
- The (lack of) impact of retraction on citation networks.Science and engineering ethics · 2015Article
- Article retracted, but the message lives on.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2014Article
- The retraction penalty: evidence from the Web of Science.Scientific reports · 2013Article
- Improving Trend of Adhering to Ethical Measures in Iranian Research in Human Genetics: A Survey from 2005 to 2009; and the Road Ahead.Iranian journal of public health · 2013Article
- Article
- Avoiding twisted pixels: ethical guidelines for the appropriate use and manipulation of scientific digital images.Science and engineering ethics · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We describe the ongoing citations to biomedical articles affected by scientific misconduct, and characterize the papers that cite these affected articles. The citations to 102 articles named in official findings of scientific misconduct during the period of 1993 and 2001 were identified through the Institute for Scientific Information Web of Science database. Using a stratified random sampling strategy, we performed a content analysis of 603 of the 5,393 citing papers to identify indications of awareness that the cited articles affected by scientific misconduct had validity issues, and to examine how the citing papers referred to the affected articles. Fewer than 5% of citing papers indicated any awareness that the cited article was retracted or named in a finding of misconduct. We also tested the hypothesis that affected articles would have fewer citations than a comparison sample; this was not supported. Most articles affected by misconduct were published in basic science journals, and we found little cause for concern that such articles may have affected clinical equipoise or clinical care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.