ArticleScientific reports2013
The retraction penalty: evidence from the Web of Science.
Article in Scientific reports, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 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
42 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review of ENT retractions.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Misconduct, Marginality and Editorial Practices in Management, Business and Economics Journals.PloS one · 2016Pooled it
- Article
- Can I trust this paper?Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Review
- The pivot penalty in research.Nature · 2025Article
- Why Universities Should Make Misconduct Reports Public.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2025Article
- Article
- Retracted articles in scientific literature: A bibliometric analysis from 2003 to 2022 using the Web of Science.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Concerning trends and potential issues in osteosarcoma research publication.Cancer science · 2024Article
- The relationship between methodological quality and the use of retracted publications in evidence syntheses.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Reply to Crocket et al. and Mottelson and Kontogiorgos: Machine Learning's scientific significance and future impact on replicability research.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Data, measurement and empirical methods in the science of science.Nature human behaviour · 2023Review
- Off-Label Use vs Off-Label Marketing: Part 2: Off-Label Marketing-Consequences for Patients, Clinicians, and Researchers.JACC. Basic to translational science · 2023Article
- The power of weak signals: how systematic reviews direct researchers away from potentially biased primary studies.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Article
- Dynamics of cross-platform attention to retracted papers.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
- Article
- A Synthesis of the Formats for Correcting Erroneous and Fraudulent Academic Literature, and Associated Challenges.Journal for general philosophy of science = Zeitschrift fur allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie · 2022Article
- A protocol to gather, characterize and analyze incoming citations of retracted articles.PloS one · 2022Article
- Article
- Scientific prizes and the extraordinary growth of scientific topics.Nature communications · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Scientific articles are retracted at increasing rates, with the highest rates among top journals. Here we show that a single retraction triggers citation losses through an author's prior body of work. Compared to closely-matched control papers, citations fall by an average of 6.9% per year for each prior publication. These chain reactions are sustained on authors' papers (a) published up to a decade earlier and (b) connected within the authors' own citation network by up to 4 degrees of separation from the retracted publication. Importantly, however, citation losses among prior work disappear when authors self-report the error. Our analyses and results span the range of scientific disciplines.
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.