Bar-Ilan, J., & Halevi, G. (2017). Post retraction citations in context: A case study. Scientometrics, 113(1), 547–565.
Bornmann, L. (2011). Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 45(1), 197–245.
Bornemann-Cimenti, H., Szilagyi, I. S., & Sandner-Kiesling, A. (2016). Perpetuation of retracted publications using the example of the Scott S. Reuben case: Incidences, reasons and possible improvements. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(4), 1063–1072.
Brasil. MEC – Portal Periódicos. (2021). Retrieved from http://www-periodicos-capes-gov-br.ezl.periodicos.capes.gov.br/index.php?
Burnham, J. (1990). The evolution of peer review. Journal of American Medical Association, 263, 1323–1329.
Candal-Pedreira, C., et al. (2020). Does retraction after misconduct have an impact on citations? A pre–post study. BMJ Global Health, 5(11), e003719.
Collins, H., & Pinch, T. (2008). Dr. Golem: How to think about medicine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
da Silva, J. A. T., & Bornemann-Cimenti, H. (2017). Why do some retracted papers continue to be cited? Scientometrics, 110(1), 365–370.
Dales, L., Hammer, S. J., & Smith, N. J. (2001). Time trends in autism and in MMR immunization coverage in California. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285(9), 1183–1185.
Derrick, G. E., et al. (2018). Towards characterising negative impact: Introducing Grimpact. In 23rd International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators. Leiden University, CWTS.
Fang, F. C., Grant 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.
Fox, M. F. (1994). Scientific misconduct and editorial and peer review processes. The Journal of Higher Education, 65(3), 298–309.
Garfield, E. (1996). What is the primordial reference for the phrase ‘publish or perish.’ The Scientist, 10(12), 11.
Gu, X., & Blackmore, K. L. (2016). Recent trends in academic journal growth. Scientometrics, 108(2), 693–716.
Horton, R. (2004). A statement by the editors of The Lancet. The Lancet, 363(9411), 820–821.
Hussain, A., et al. (2018). The anti-vaccination movement: a regression in modern medicine. Cureus, 10(7), e2919.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (2013). Cycles of credit. In: Laboratory life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Leta, J., Araujo, K., & Treiber, S. (2021). Citing a retracted paper: the case of Wakefield’s article that correlates vaccine and autism. In 18th International conference on scientometrics & informetrics, 2021, Leuven (Vol. 01, pp. 645–650).
Luwel, M., van Eck, N.J. and van Leeuwen, T.N. (2018). The Schön case: Analyzing in-text citations to papers before and after retraction. In 23rd International conference on science and technology indicators (STI 2018).
Meadows, A. J. (1974). Communication in science. Butterworths.
Murch, S. H., et al. (2004). Retraction of an interpretation. The Lancet, 363(9411), 750.
Retraction Watch. Retraction Watch. (2020). Retrieved from https://retractionwatch.com/.
Steneck, N. H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 53–74.
Suelzer, E. M., et al. (2019). Assessment of citations of the retracted article by Wakefield et al with fraudulent claims of an association between vaccination and autism. JAMA Network Open, 2(11), e1915552–e1915552.
Taylor, B., et al. (1999). Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: No epidemiological evidence for a causal association. Lancet, 353(9169), 2026–2029.
Teixeira da Silva, J.A., Dobránszki, J. and Bornemann-Cimenti, H. (2016). Citing retracted papers has a negative domino effect on science, education, and society. Impact of Social Sciences Blog. Retrieved from https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2016/12/06/citing-retracted-papers-has-a-negative-domino-effect-on-science-education-and-society/#:~:text=This%20paper%20has%20been%20cited,veracity%20of%20a%20scientific%20claim.&text=Retracted%20papers%20should%20not%20be%20cited.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Vuong, Q. H. (2021). Fortification of retraction notices to improve their transparency and usefulness. Learned Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1409
The Editors of The Lancet. (2010). Retraction–Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children [retraction of:Wakefield AJ, Murch SH, Anthony A, et al. In: Lancet (1998):351 (9103):637–641]. Lancet. 2010;375(9713):445. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60175-4
Thomas, DRh., Salmon, R. L., & King, J. (1998). Rates of first measles-mumps-rubella immunisation in Wales (UK). Lancet, 351, 1927.
Torres-Salinas, D., Robinson-García, N. and Moed, H.F. (2019). Disentangling gold open access. In Springer handbook of science and technology indicators (pp. 129–144). Springer, Cham.
Vuong, Q. H. (2020a). The limitations of retraction notices and the heroic acts of authors who correct the scholarly record: An analysis of retractions of papers published from 1975 to 2019. Learned Publishing, 33(2), 119–130.
Vuong, Q. H. (2020b). Reform retractions to make them more transparent. Nature, 582, 7811.
Wakefield, A. J., et al. (1993). Evidence of persistent measles virus infection in Crohn’s disease. Journal of Medical Virology, 39(4), 345–353.