Our findings deepen the understanding of why retraction does not stop citation and demonstrate that the vast majority of postretraction citations in biomedicine do not document the retraction.Īlthough citations to retracted papers have been widely discussed in previous studies, the bulk of studies focused on a small number of retracted papers (e.g., 15 retracted papers in Bar-Ilan and Halevi ) or a single retracted paper ( Schneider, Ye et al., 2020 Suelzer, Deal et al., 2019 van der Vet & Nijveen, 2016). These 722 citation contexts, the retracted papers were most commonly cited as related work or as an example of problematic science. Furthermore, among the 13,252 postretraction citation contexts, only 722 (5.4%) citation contexts acknowledged the retraction. Analysis of the text progression of pre- and postretraction citation contexts shows that retraction did not change the way the retracted papers were cited. Our temporal analyses show that retracted papers continued to be cited, but that old retracted papers stopped being cited as time progressed. Compared with previous citation studies that focused on comparing citation counts using two time frames (i.e., preretraction and postretraction), our analyses show the longitudinal trends of citations to retracted papers in the past 60 years (1960–2020). We present the first database-wide study on the citation contexts of retracted papers, which covers 7,813 retracted papers indexed in PubMed, 169,434 citations collected from iCite, and 48,134 citation contexts identified from the XML version of the PubMed Central Open Access Subset.
0 kommentar(er)
