{"title":"Evolution of retracted publications in the medical sciences: Citations analysis, bibliometrics, and altmetrics trends.","authors":"Shahnaz Khademizadeh, Farshid Danesh, Samira Esmaeili, Brady Lund, Karen Santos-d'Amorim","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2223996","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We investigated reasons for retraction, pre-and post-retraction citations and Altmetrics indicators of retracted publications in the medical sciences from 2016 to 2020. Data were retrieved from Scopus (<i>n</i> = 840). The Retraction Watch database was used to identify the reasons for retraction and the time that elapsed from publication to retraction. The findings showed that intentional errors were the most prevalent reasons for retraction. China (438), the United States (130), and India (51) have the largest share of retractions. These retracted publications were cited 5,659 times in other research publications, of which 1,559 citations occurred after the retraction, which should raise concern. These retracted papers were also shared in online platforms, mainly on Twitter and by members of the general public. We recommend that the early detection of retracted papers may help to reduce the rate of citation and sharing of these publications, and minimize their negative impact.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1182-1197"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2023.2223996","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/6/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
We investigated reasons for retraction, pre-and post-retraction citations and Altmetrics indicators of retracted publications in the medical sciences from 2016 to 2020. Data were retrieved from Scopus (n = 840). The Retraction Watch database was used to identify the reasons for retraction and the time that elapsed from publication to retraction. The findings showed that intentional errors were the most prevalent reasons for retraction. China (438), the United States (130), and India (51) have the largest share of retractions. These retracted publications were cited 5,659 times in other research publications, of which 1,559 citations occurred after the retraction, which should raise concern. These retracted papers were also shared in online platforms, mainly on Twitter and by members of the general public. We recommend that the early detection of retracted papers may help to reduce the rate of citation and sharing of these publications, and minimize their negative impact.
期刊介绍：
Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results.
The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science.
All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
