A quantitative and qualitative open citation analysis of retracted articles in the humanities

IF 4.1 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Quantitative Science Studies Pub Date : 2021-11-09 DOI:10.1162/qss_a_00222
Ivan Heibi, S. Peroni
{"title":"A quantitative and qualitative open citation analysis of retracted articles in the humanities","authors":"Ivan Heibi, S. Peroni","doi":"10.1162/qss_a_00222","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this article, we show and discuss the results of a quantitative and qualitative analysis of open citations of retracted publications in the humanities domain. Our study was conducted by selecting retracted papers in the humanities domain and marking their main characteristics (e.g., retraction reason). Then, we gathered the citing entities and annotated their basic metadata (e.g., title, venue, subject) and the characteristics of their in-text citations (e.g., intent, sentiment). Using these data, we performed a quantitative and qualitative study of retractions in the humanities, presenting descriptive statistics and a topic modeling analysis of the citing entities’ abstracts and the in-text citation contexts. As part of our main findings, we noticed that there was no drop in the overall number of citations after the year of retraction, with few entities that have either mentioned the retraction or expressed a negative sentiment toward the cited publication. In addition, on several occasions, we noticed a higher concern/awareness by citing entities belonging to the health sciences domain about citing a retracted publication, compared with the humanities and social science domains. Philosophy, arts, and history are the humanities areas that showed higher concern toward the retraction.","PeriodicalId":34021,"journal":{"name":"Quantitative Science Studies","volume":"3 1","pages":"953-975"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quantitative Science Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00222","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Abstract In this article, we show and discuss the results of a quantitative and qualitative analysis of open citations of retracted publications in the humanities domain. Our study was conducted by selecting retracted papers in the humanities domain and marking their main characteristics (e.g., retraction reason). Then, we gathered the citing entities and annotated their basic metadata (e.g., title, venue, subject) and the characteristics of their in-text citations (e.g., intent, sentiment). Using these data, we performed a quantitative and qualitative study of retractions in the humanities, presenting descriptive statistics and a topic modeling analysis of the citing entities’ abstracts and the in-text citation contexts. As part of our main findings, we noticed that there was no drop in the overall number of citations after the year of retraction, with few entities that have either mentioned the retraction or expressed a negative sentiment toward the cited publication. In addition, on several occasions, we noticed a higher concern/awareness by citing entities belonging to the health sciences domain about citing a retracted publication, compared with the humanities and social science domains. Philosophy, arts, and history are the humanities areas that showed higher concern toward the retraction.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
人文学科撤稿文章的定量和定性开放引文分析
在本文中,我们展示并讨论了对人文学科领域撤回出版物的开放引用进行定量和定性分析的结果。我们的研究是通过选择人文学科领域的撤稿论文并标记其主要特征(如撤稿原因)来进行的。然后,我们收集引用实体并标注其基本元数据(如标题、地点、主题)及其文本引用特征(如意图、情感)。利用这些数据,我们对人文学科的撤稿进行了定量和定性研究,对引用实体的摘要和文本引用上下文进行了描述性统计和主题建模分析。作为我们主要发现的一部分,我们注意到,在撤稿年份之后,被引用的总数量没有下降,很少有实体提到撤稿或对被引用的出版物表达负面情绪。此外,有几次,我们注意到,与人文和社会科学领域相比,引用属于健康科学领域的实体对引用撤回的出版物有更高的关注/意识。哲学、艺术、历史是对撤稿关注度较高的人文学科。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Quantitative Science Studies
Quantitative Science Studies INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
12.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
46
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊介绍:
期刊最新文献
Technological Impact of Funded Research: A Case Study of Non-Patent References Socio-cultural factors and academic openness of world countries Scope and limitations of library metrics for the assessment of ebook usage: COUNTER R5 and link resolver The rise of responsible metrics as a professional reform movement: A collective action frames account New methodologies for the digital age? How methods (re-)organize research using social media data
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1