ArticleScience and engineering ethics2015
The (lack of) impact of retraction on citation networks.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Causes for Retraction in the Biomedical Literature: A Systematic Review of Studies of Retraction Notices.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Pooled it
- Scientific retractions: causes, processes, and implications for research integrity.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Review
- Post-publication corrections of rheumatology articles: a comprehensive analysis.Advances in rheumatology (London, England) · 2026Article
- Is biomedical research self-correcting? Modelling insights on the persistence of spurious science.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- The relationship between methodological quality and the use of retracted publications in evidence syntheses.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Cross-cultural differences in retracted publications of male and female from a global perspective.Scientometrics · 2023Article
- Dynamics of cross-platform attention to retracted papers.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
- Reducing Health Misinformation in Science: A Call to Arms.The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science · 2022Article
- Article
- An analysis of retractions in neurosurgery and allied clinical and basic science specialties.Acta neurochirurgica · 2021Article
- Research ethics: a profile of retractions from world class universities.Scientometrics · 2021Article
- Plagiarism, Fake Peer-Review, and Duplication: Predominant Reasons Underlying Retractions of Iran-Affiliated Scientific Papers.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Article
- Does retraction after misconduct have an impact on citations? A pre-post study.BMJ global health · 2020Article
- Assessment of Citations of the Retracted Article by Wakefield et al With Fraudulent Claims of an Association Between Vaccination and Autism.JAMA network open · 2019Article
- The ability of different peer review procedures to flag problematic publications.Scientometrics · 2019Article
- The visibility of scientific misconduct: A review of the literature on retracted journal articles.Current sociology. La Sociologie contemporaine · 2017Review
- Post retraction citations in context: a case study.Scientometrics · 2017Article
- Concern noted: A descriptive study of editorial expressions of concern in PubMed and PubMed Central.Research integrity and peer review · 2017Article
- Perpetuation of Retracted Publications Using the Example of the Scott S. Reuben Case: Incidences, Reasons and Possible Improvements.Science and engineering ethics · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Article retraction in research is rising, yet retracted articles continue to be cited at a disturbing rate. This paper presents an analysis of recent retraction patterns, with a unique emphasis on the role author self-cites play, to assist the scientific community in creating counter-strategies. This was accomplished by examining the following: (1) A categorization of retracted articles more complete than previously published work. (2) The relationship between citation counts and after-retraction self-cites from the authors of the work, and the distribution of self-cites across our retraction categories. (3) The distribution of retractions written by both the author and the editor across our retraction categories. (4) The trends for seven of our nine defined retraction categories over a 6-year period. (5) The average journal impact factor by category, and the relationship between impact factor, author self-cites, and overall citations. Our findings indicate new reasons for retractions have emerged in recent years, and more editors are penning retractions. The rates of increase for retraction varies by category, and there is statistically significant difference of average impact factor between many categories. 18 % of authors self-cite retracted work post retraction with only 10 % of those authors also citing the retraction notice. Further, there is a positive correlation between self-cites and after retraction citations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24668038What 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.