ArticleJournal of Korean medical science2026
Altmetric Activity and Scientific Integrity: A Retraction Analysis of PubMed-Indexed Social Media-Related Publications.
Article in Journal of Korean medical science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Retractions of publications on central nervous system tumors based on the Retraction Watch Database.Chinese neurosurgical journal · 2026Article
- Letter to the Editor: Citations of Retracted Publications Should Be Discounted From One's Bibliometric Indicator.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSocial media is an essential tool for the dissemination of scientific information. The growing number of publications related to social media raises concerns about the proliferation of misleading information in the scientific literature. Retractions act as a crucial corrective mechanism in scholarly publishing; however, their relationship with social media visibility has not been thoroughly examined.
methodsAs part of our descriptive research, 55 retracted social media-related publications indexed in the PubMed database were analyzed. Such characteristics as the number of authors, the time from the date of publication to the retraction, the indexing of publications in the Web of Science, Scopus, and Directory of Open Access Journals databases, the country of the authors of correspondence, the reasons for the retraction, and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) were analyzed. The data on citations and mentions in various social media platforms were analyzed.
resultsThe highest number of retracted publications was published in 2023 (n = 39), and the median time from publication date to retraction amounted to 541 (28-912) days. China and India were the leading countries for corresponding authorship and international collaborations. The leading causes of retractions were Investigation by Journal/Publisher (n = 45), Unreliable Results and/or Conclusions (n = 41), Concerns/Issues about Referencing/Attributions (n = 37), Concerns/Issues with Peer Review (n = 35), and Concerns/Issues about Results and/or Conclusions (n = 35). The median AAS of retracted publications was 1.5 (1-1,627). A positive correlation was found between the number of citations and AAS (rho = 0.562,
conclusionRetracted social media-related papers can gain substantial digital circulation before formal retraction, highlighting vulnerabilities in the current scientific interaction ecosystem. These findings urge more post-publication supervision, timely retraction notices, and international collaboration to enhance research integrity, especially in the rapid, decentralized digital distribution age.
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.