Skip to main content
Log in

Self-correction of science: a comparative study of negative citations and post-publication peer review

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

This study investigates whether negative citations in articles and comments posted on post-publication peer review platforms are both equally contributing to the correction of science. These 2 types of written evidence of disputes are compared by analyzing their occurrence in relation to articles that have already been retracted or corrected. We identified retracted or corrected articles in a corpus of 72,069 articles coming from the Engineering field, from 3 journals (Science, Tumor Biology, Cancer Research) and from 3 authors with many retractions to their credit (Sarkar, Schön, Voinnet). We used Scite to retrieve contradicting citations and PubPeer to retrieve the number of comments for each article, and then we considered them as traces left by scientists to contest published results. Our study shows that contradicting citations are very uncommon and that retracted or corrected articles are not more contradicted in scholarly articles than those that are neither retracted nor corrected but they do generate more comments on Pubpeer, presumably because of the possibility for contributors to remain anonymous. Moreover, post-publication peer review platforms, although external to the scientific publication process contribute more to the correction of science than negative citations. Consequently, post-publication peer review venues, and more specifically the comments found on it, although not contributing to the scientific literature, are a mechanism for correcting science. Lastly, we introduced the idea of strengthening the role of contradicting citations to rehabilitate the clear expression of judgment in scientific papers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Formalized procedure of debate dating from the Middle Ages.

  2. RetractionWatch is a blog launched in 2010 by two science journalists and is dedicated to the tracking of retracted papers. In 2018, they released an online database of all the cases they have recorded: of all the cases they have recorded http://retractiondatabase.org.

  3. Committee on Publication Ethics, http://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines.pdf.

  4. "Crossmark gives readers quick and easy access to the current status of an item of content. With one click, you can see if content has been updated, corrected or retracted and access valuable additional metadata provided by the publisher" (source: http://www.crossref.org/services/crossmark).

  5. All Science Journal Classification, which is used to classify journals and conferences in Scopus.

  6. http://scite.ai.

  7. http://pubpeer.com.

References

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are indebted to Joshua Nicholson from Scite for making citation polarity data available.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frederique Bordignon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bordignon, F. Self-correction of science: a comparative study of negative citations and post-publication peer review. Scientometrics 124, 1225–1239 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03536-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03536-z

Keywords

Navigation