揭示病毒学撤稿的原因:引文和 Altmetric 调查

R. Malla, Zahid Ashraf Wani
{"title":"揭示病毒学撤稿的原因:引文和 Altmetric 调查","authors":"R. Malla, Zahid Ashraf Wani","doi":"10.1108/gkmc-11-2023-0415","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose\nThis paper aims to delve into the critical examination of retractions in virology to identify the underlying factor that led to the retraction of scientific publications in this specialised domain. Further, this study offers insights into the impact of the retracted publications in the scholarly world vis-à-vis citation and Altmetric indicators.\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThe top 100 highly cited retracted articles from virology category were taken from the Web of Science (WoS) database. The Retraction Watch database was used for knowing the reasons for retraction for each retracted publication. The citation and Altmetric score of retracted publications were noted down from WoS and Altmetric.com databases, respectively. Journal Citation Report was used to note down the impact factor of the journals that have published these articles.\n\nFindings\n“Misconduct” (57.73%) is the most prevalent reason for the retraction of publications followed by plagiarism (18.55%) and journal issues (14.43%). The retracted papers are cited even after their retraction. Around 70.52% citations were received before and 29.47% after retraction. The highest number of retracted papers was published in the Journal of Virology (14) and Journal of Chemistry (10). High-impact factor journals such as Lancet, Cell and Nature each own one retracted paper. The study found dissemination of these publications through social media platforms with highest social media mentions (394) followed by policy and patents mentions (373) and news and blog mentions (300).\n\nPractical implications\nThe research delves into understanding the reasons behind the retraction of virology papers and the impact of these publications through citation and Altmetric analyses. Its impactions include bolstering quality control in virology research, maintaining trust in scientific literature. Citation and Altmetric analyses offer deep insights into the broader impact of retracted papers, informing policy and publishing practices to uphold scientific integrity in virology.\n\nOriginality/value\nThis study addresses a specific and crucial aspect of scientific research retractions within the field of virology. While retractions have been studied in broader terms in scientific research, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, no such study has been conducted in the scientific field of virology.\n","PeriodicalId":507843,"journal":{"name":"Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication","volume":"55 s64","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Uncovering the reasons of retraction in virology: a citation and Altmetric investigation\",\"authors\":\"R. Malla, Zahid Ashraf Wani\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/gkmc-11-2023-0415\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose\\nThis paper aims to delve into the critical examination of retractions in virology to identify the underlying factor that led to the retraction of scientific publications in this specialised domain. Further, this study offers insights into the impact of the retracted publications in the scholarly world vis-à-vis citation and Altmetric indicators.\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nThe top 100 highly cited retracted articles from virology category were taken from the Web of Science (WoS) database. The Retraction Watch database was used for knowing the reasons for retraction for each retracted publication. The citation and Altmetric score of retracted publications were noted down from WoS and Altmetric.com databases, respectively. Journal Citation Report was used to note down the impact factor of the journals that have published these articles.\\n\\nFindings\\n“Misconduct” (57.73%) is the most prevalent reason for the retraction of publications followed by plagiarism (18.55%) and journal issues (14.43%). The retracted papers are cited even after their retraction. Around 70.52% citations were received before and 29.47% after retraction. The highest number of retracted papers was published in the Journal of Virology (14) and Journal of Chemistry (10). High-impact factor journals such as Lancet, Cell and Nature each own one retracted paper. The study found dissemination of these publications through social media platforms with highest social media mentions (394) followed by policy and patents mentions (373) and news and blog mentions (300).\\n\\nPractical implications\\nThe research delves into understanding the reasons behind the retraction of virology papers and the impact of these publications through citation and Altmetric analyses. Its impactions include bolstering quality control in virology research, maintaining trust in scientific literature. Citation and Altmetric analyses offer deep insights into the broader impact of retracted papers, informing policy and publishing practices to uphold scientific integrity in virology.\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nThis study addresses a specific and crucial aspect of scientific research retractions within the field of virology. While retractions have been studied in broader terms in scientific research, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, no such study has been conducted in the scientific field of virology.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":507843,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication\",\"volume\":\"55 s64\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/gkmc-11-2023-0415\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/gkmc-11-2023-0415","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的 本文旨在深入研究病毒学领域的撤稿事件,找出导致该专业领域科学出版物撤稿的根本原因。此外,本研究还从引文和 Altmetric 指标的角度深入分析了被撤出版物在学术界的影响。设计/方法/途径从 Web of Science (WoS) 数据库中选取了病毒学类别中前 100 篇高被引撤稿。撤稿观察数据库用于了解每篇撤稿论文的撤稿原因。WoS 和 Altmetric.com 数据库分别记录了被撤出版物的引文和 Altmetric 分数。研究结果 "不当行为"(57.73%)是最常见的撤稿原因,其次是剽窃(18.55%)和期刊问题(14.43%)。被撤稿的论文在撤稿后仍被引用。撤稿前和撤稿后分别有 70.52% 和 29.47% 的论文被引用。被撤论文数量最多的是《病毒学杂志》(14 篇)和《化学杂志》(10 篇)。柳叶刀》、《细胞》和《自然》等高影响因子期刊各拥有一篇撤稿论文。研究发现,这些论文是通过社交媒体平台传播的,其中社交媒体提及率最高(394 次),其次是政策和专利提及率(373 次)以及新闻和博客提及率(300 次)。其影响包括加强病毒学研究的质量控制,维护对科学文献的信任。引用和 Altmetric 分析深入揭示了被撤论文的广泛影响,为维护病毒学科学诚信的政策和出版实践提供了参考。虽然在科学研究领域已经对撤稿进行了更广泛的研究,但据作者所知,在病毒学科学领域还没有进行过此类研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Uncovering the reasons of retraction in virology: a citation and Altmetric investigation
Purpose This paper aims to delve into the critical examination of retractions in virology to identify the underlying factor that led to the retraction of scientific publications in this specialised domain. Further, this study offers insights into the impact of the retracted publications in the scholarly world vis-à-vis citation and Altmetric indicators. Design/methodology/approach The top 100 highly cited retracted articles from virology category were taken from the Web of Science (WoS) database. The Retraction Watch database was used for knowing the reasons for retraction for each retracted publication. The citation and Altmetric score of retracted publications were noted down from WoS and Altmetric.com databases, respectively. Journal Citation Report was used to note down the impact factor of the journals that have published these articles. Findings “Misconduct” (57.73%) is the most prevalent reason for the retraction of publications followed by plagiarism (18.55%) and journal issues (14.43%). The retracted papers are cited even after their retraction. Around 70.52% citations were received before and 29.47% after retraction. The highest number of retracted papers was published in the Journal of Virology (14) and Journal of Chemistry (10). High-impact factor journals such as Lancet, Cell and Nature each own one retracted paper. The study found dissemination of these publications through social media platforms with highest social media mentions (394) followed by policy and patents mentions (373) and news and blog mentions (300). Practical implications The research delves into understanding the reasons behind the retraction of virology papers and the impact of these publications through citation and Altmetric analyses. Its impactions include bolstering quality control in virology research, maintaining trust in scientific literature. Citation and Altmetric analyses offer deep insights into the broader impact of retracted papers, informing policy and publishing practices to uphold scientific integrity in virology. Originality/value This study addresses a specific and crucial aspect of scientific research retractions within the field of virology. While retractions have been studied in broader terms in scientific research, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, no such study has been conducted in the scientific field of virology.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Farmers’ access to agricultural information sources: a study of Lakadong turmeric farmers Understanding Malaysia’s perceived destination image formation through online user-generated content information qualities Farmers’ access to agricultural information sources: a study of Lakadong turmeric farmers Understanding Malaysia’s perceived destination image formation through online user-generated content information qualities Enhancing service delivery through digital transformation in the public sector in South Africa
×
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