| Title |
Post retraction citations in context: a case study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scientometrics, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11192-017-2242-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Judit Bar-Ilan, Gali Halevi |
| Abstract |
This study examines the nature of citations to articles that were retracted in 2014. Out of 987 retracted articles found in ScienceDirect, an Elsevier full text database, we selected all articles that received more than 10 citations between January 2015 and March 2016. Since the retraction year was known for only about 83% of the retracted articles, we chose to concentrate on recent citations, that for certain appeared after the cited paper was retracted. Overall, we analyzed 238 citing documents and identified the context of each citation as positive, negative or neutral. Our results show that the vast majority of citations to retracted articles are positive despite of the clear retraction notice on the publisher's platform and regardless of the reason for retraction. Positive citations can be also seen to articles that were retracted due to ethical misconduct, data fabrication and false reports. In light of these results, we listed some recommendations for publishers that could potentially minimize the referral to retracted studies as valid. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 27% |
| Australia | 1 | 9% |
| Indonesia | 1 | 9% |
| United States | 1 | 9% |
| Spain | 1 | 9% |
| Brazil | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 3 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 64% |
| Scientists | 3 | 27% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 117 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 12% |
| Librarian | 13 | 11% |
| Researcher | 13 | 11% |
| Other | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 26 | 22% |
| Unknown | 29 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 20 | 17% |
| Computer Science | 14 | 12% |
| Engineering | 7 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 5% |
| Arts and Humanities | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 33 | 28% |
| Unknown | 34 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 85. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 July 2023.
All research outputs
#497,687
of 25,260,058 outputs
Outputs from Scientometrics
#48
of 2,895 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,503
of 316,776 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientometrics
#5
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,260,058 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,895 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,776 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.