Does retraction after misconduct have an impact on citations? A pre-post study.
health services research
Journal
BMJ global health
ISSN: 2059-7908
Titre abrégé: BMJ Glob Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101685275
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2020
11 2020
Historique:
received:
15
08
2020
revised:
26
10
2020
accepted:
29
10
2020
entrez:
14
11
2020
pubmed:
15
11
2020
medline:
15
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Retracted articles continue to be cited after retraction, and this could have consequences for the scientific community and general population alike. This study was conducted to analyse the association of retraction on citations received by retracted papers due to misconduct using two-time frames: during a postretraction period equivalent to the time the article had been in print before retraction; and during the total postretraction period. Quasiexperimental, pre-post evaluation study. A total of 304 retracted original articles and literature reviews indexed in MEDLINE fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Articles were required to have been published in a journal indexed in MEDLINE from January 2013 through December 2015 and been retracted between January 2014 and December 2016. The main outcome was the number of citations received before and after retraction. Results were broken down by journal quartile according to impact factor and the most cited papers during the preretraction period were specifically analysed. There was an increase in postretraction citations when compared with citations received preretraction. There were some exceptions however: first, citations received by articles published in first-quartile journals decreased immediately after retraction (p<0.05), only to increase again after some time had elapsed; and second, postretraction citations decreased significantly in the case of articles that had received many citations before their retraction (p<0.05). The results indicate that retraction of articles has no association on citations in the long term, since the retracted articles continue to be cited, thus circumventing their retraction.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Retracted articles continue to be cited after retraction, and this could have consequences for the scientific community and general population alike. This study was conducted to analyse the association of retraction on citations received by retracted papers due to misconduct using two-time frames: during a postretraction period equivalent to the time the article had been in print before retraction; and during the total postretraction period.
METHODS
Quasiexperimental, pre-post evaluation study. A total of 304 retracted original articles and literature reviews indexed in MEDLINE fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Articles were required to have been published in a journal indexed in MEDLINE from January 2013 through December 2015 and been retracted between January 2014 and December 2016. The main outcome was the number of citations received before and after retraction. Results were broken down by journal quartile according to impact factor and the most cited papers during the preretraction period were specifically analysed.
RESULTS
There was an increase in postretraction citations when compared with citations received preretraction. There were some exceptions however: first, citations received by articles published in first-quartile journals decreased immediately after retraction (p<0.05), only to increase again after some time had elapsed; and second, postretraction citations decreased significantly in the case of articles that had received many citations before their retraction (p<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
The results indicate that retraction of articles has no association on citations in the long term, since the retracted articles continue to be cited, thus circumventing their retraction.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33187964
pii: bmjgh-2020-003719
doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003719
pmc: PMC7668300
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.
Références
JAMA. 1990 Mar 9;263(10):1420-3
pubmed: 2406475
EMBO Rep. 2008 Jan;9(1):2
pubmed: 18174889
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Nov 1;2(11):e1915552
pubmed: 31730183
Lancet. 2004 Mar 6;363(9411):750
pubmed: 15016483
PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e44118
pubmed: 23115617
Med J Aust. 2006 Aug 7;185(3):152-4
pubmed: 16893357
Lancet. 2010 Feb 6;375(9713):445
pubmed: 20137807
PLoS One. 2019 Jun 13;14(6):e0217918
pubmed: 31194762
Sci Eng Ethics. 2015 Feb;21(1):127-37
pubmed: 24668038
J Med Ethics. 2008 Nov;34(11):807-9
pubmed: 18974415
J Med Libr Assoc. 2020 Jul 1;108(3):389-397
pubmed: 32843870
Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1992 Oct;80(4):328-34
pubmed: 1422502
Nature. 2011 Oct 05;478(7367):26-8
pubmed: 21979026
J Med Ethics. 2011 Apr;37(4):249-53
pubmed: 21186208
Gac Sanit. 2020 Sep - Oct;34(5):430-434
pubmed: 31530483
Gac Sanit. 2019 Jul - Aug;33(4):356-360
pubmed: 29776690
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2019 Jan;24(1):44-51
pubmed: 30249142
EMBO Rep. 2007 May;8(5):422-3
pubmed: 17471252
Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1999 Oct;87(4):437-43
pubmed: 10550028
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Oct 16;109(42):17028-33
pubmed: 23027971