Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 127–137 | Cite as

The (lack of) Impact of Retraction on Citation Networks

Original Paper

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.

Keywords

Scientific misconduct Publication ethics Citation networks Retractions 

References

  1. Broadus, R. N. (1983). An Investigation of the validity of bibliographic citations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 34(2), 132–135. doi:10.1002/asi.4630340206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Campanario, J. (2000). Fraud: Retracted articles are still being cited. Nature, 408(6810), 288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cokol, M., Ozbay, F., & Rodriguez-Esteban, R. (2008). Retraction rates are on the rise. EMBO Reports, 9(1), 2. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7401143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Couzin, J., & Unger, K. (2006). Cleaning up the paper trail. Science, 312(5770), 38–43. doi:10.1126/science.312.5770.38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(42), 17028–17033. doi:10.1073/pnas.1212247109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Franzen, M., Rodder, S., & Weingart, P. (2007). Fraud: Causes and culprits as perceived by science and the media. EMBO Reports, 8(1), 3–7. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Friedman, P. J. (1990). Correcting the literature following fraudulent publication. JAMA: TheJournal of the American Medical Association, 263(10), 1416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Neale, A. V., Dailey, R. K., & Abrams, J. (2009). Analysis of citations to biomedical articles affected by scientific misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics, 16(2), 251–261. doi:10.1007/s11948-009-9151-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Redman, B. K., Yarandi, H. N., & Merz, J. F. (2008). Empirical developments in retraction. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34(11), 807–809. doi:10.1136/jme.2007.023069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Simkin, M., & Roychowdhury, V. (2006). Do you sincerely want to be cited? Or: Read before you cite. Significance, 3(4), 179–181. doi:10.1111/j.1740-9713.2006.00202.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Sox, H. C., & Rennie, D. (2006). Research misconduct, retraction, and cleansing the medical literature: Lessons from the Poehlman case. Annals of Internal Medicine, 144(8), 609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Steen, R. G. (2011). Retractions in the scientific literature: Is the incidence of research fraud increasing? Journal of Medical Ethics, 37(4), 249–253. doi:10.1136/jme.2010.040923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Unger, K., & Couzin, J. (2006). Even retracted papers endure. Science, 312(5770), 40–41. doi:10.1126/science.312.5770.40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Wager, E., Barbour, V., Yentis, S., Kleinert, S., et al. (2009). Retractions: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Maturitas, 64(4), 201–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Wager, E., & Williams, P. (2011). Why and how do journals retract articles? An Analysis of medline retractions 1988–2008. Journal of Medical Ethics. doi:10.1136/jme.2010.040964. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21486985.
  16. Zitt, M., Ramanana-Rahary, S., & Bassecoulard, E. (2005). Relativity of citation performance and excellence measures: From cross-field to cross-scale effects of field-normalisation. Scientometrics, 63(2), 373–401. doi:10.1007/s11192-005-0218-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Health InformaticsUniversity of IowaIowa CityUSA
  2. 2.School of Library and Information ScienceUniversity of IowaIowa CityUSA
  3. 3.Institute for Clinical and Translational ScienceUniversity of IowaIowa CityUSA

Personalised recommendations