2021
Continued use of retracted papers: Temporal trends in citations and (lack of) awareness of retractions shown in citation contexts in biomedicine
Abstract: We present the first database-wise 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. Compared with previous citation studies that focused on comparing citation counts using two time frames (i.e., pre-retraction and post-retraction), our analyses show the longitudinal trends of citations to retracted papers in the …
Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Select...
66
13
7
0
Citation Types
3
53
0
1
Year Published
2021
2026
Publication Types
Select...
58
9
8
6
Relationship
7
74
Authors
Journals
Cited by 75 publications
(57 citation statements)
References 60 publications
3
53
0
1
“…This would indicate that, in our sample, evidence syntheses that cite retracted publications are not identifying that the publication has been retracted. These findings are consistent with previous research, including two studies which independently found that over 94% of citations to retracted publications do not indicate that the publication was retracted [ 16 , 49 ]. Future research could explore the correlations between citing retracted publications in evidence syntheses and having a librarian or informational professional as a co-author.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…This would indicate that, in our sample, evidence syntheses that cite retracted publications are not identifying that the publication has been retracted. These findings are consistent with previous research, including two studies which independently found that over 94% of citations to retracted publications do not indicate that the publication was retracted [ 16 , 49 ]. Future research could explore the correlations between citing retracted publications in evidence syntheses and having a librarian or informational professional as a co-author.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…As in previous investigations outside the field of anesthesiology, our findings that only a small percentage (5.2%) of the postretraction citations noted the retracted status of the manuscript or the misconduct therein are particularly important. 21,25,26 The majority (80.2%) of these postretraction citations were positive, affirming the findings of the retracted manuscripts. In the subcategory of original research investigations, the citations in the introduction section were generally used to provide background information, related work, or temporal context.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 64%
“…Our findings are not surprising because prior research demonstrates that post-retraction citations are common and portray retracted works in a positive light (Budd, Sievert & Schults, 1998;Hamilton, 2019;Hsiao & Schneider, 2021;Neale, Dailey, & Abrams, 2010;Piller, 2021;Schneider et al, 2020;Suelzer et al, 2019;Theis-Mahon & Bakker, 2020;Yang, Qi, & Diao, 2020). However, we demonstrate that citing authors did more-they disseminated disinformation when given ample time to learn of retractions.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 57%
