Scientific retraction practices are intended to help purge the continued use of flawed research and assist in maintaining the integrity, credibility and quality of scientific literature. However, the practical effect of retraction is still vague and needs to be further explored. In this study, we analysed the citation counts and sentiments (positive/negative) of retracted articles in psychology journals from Web of Science to explore the effect of retraction. Causal inference strategies were used to measure the net effect of retractions on citation. Results show that the retraction practices induced the citation counts to reduce as expected. However, the proportion of negative citations also decreased because of retraction, indicating an unsatisfied effect. The retraction practice of high-impact factors and open access journals was more effective than other journals. The study integrated an understanding of the dissemination of erroneous publications and provided implications for liabilities involved in the whole retraction process.
FangFCSteenRGCasadevallA. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A2012; 109: 17028–17033.
3.
CataliniCLaceteraNOettlA. The incidence and role of negative citations in science. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A2015; 112: 13823–13826.
4.
Bar-IlanJHaleviG. Post retraction citations in context: a case study. Scientometrics2017; 113: 547–565.
5.
RedmanBKYarandiHNMerzJF. Empirical developments in retraction. J Med Ethics2008; 34: 807–809.
6.
BikEMCasadevallAFangFC. The prevalence of inappropriate image duplication in biomedical research publications. mBio2016; 7: 8.
7.
CokolMOzbayFRodriguez-EstebanR. Retraction rates are on the rise. EMBO Rep2008; 9: 2.
8.
PfeiferMPSnodgrassGL. THE continued use of retracted, invalid scientific literature. JAMA1990; 263: 1420–1423.
9.
HeTW. Retraction of global scientific publications from 2001 to 2010. Scientometrics2013; 96: 555–561.
10.
AspuraMKYNoorhidawatiAAbrizahA. An analysis of Malaysian retracted papers: misconduct or mistakes?Scientometrics2018; 115: 1315–1328.
11.
LeiLZhangY. Lack of improvement in scientific integrity: an analysis of WoS retractions by Chinese researchers (1997-2016). Sci Eng Ethics2018; 24: 1409–1420.
12.
ElangoBKozakMRajendranP. Analysis of retractions in Indian science. Scientometrics2019; 119: 1081–1094.
13.
FooJYA. A retrospective analysis of the trend of retracted publications in the field of biomedical and life sciences. Sci Eng Ethics2011; 17: 459–468.
14.
Dal-ReRAyusoC. Reasons for and time to retraction of genetics articles published between 1970 and 2018. J Med Genet2019; 56: 734–740.
15.
SampJCSchumockGTPickardAS. Retracted publications in the drug literature. Pharmacotherapy2012; 32: 586–595.
16.
ChauvinADe VillelongueCPateronDet al. A systematic review of retracted publications in emergency medicine. Eur J Emerg Med2019; 26: 19–23.
17.
LuSFJinGZUzziBet al. The retraction penalty: evidence from the Web of Science. Sci Rep2013; 3: 3146.
18.
AjiferukeIAdekannbiJO. Correction and retraction practices in library and information science journals. J Libr Inf Sci2020; 52: 169–183.
19.
TourishD. Paradise lost but not regained: retractions and management studies. In: TourishD (ed.) Management studies in crisis fraud, deception and meaningless research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019, pp. 106–132.
20.
AlrawadiehZZareerA. Exploring retraction in tourism and hospitality journals. Eur J Tour Res2019; 22: 20–30.
21.
WichertsJM. Psychology must learn a lesson from fraud case. Nature2011; 480: 7.
22.
CraigRCoxATourishDet al. Using retracted journal articles in psychology to understand research misconduct in the social sciences: what is to be done?Res Policy2020; 49: 103930.
23.
StrickerJGuntherA. Scientific misconduct in psychology: a systematic review of prevalence estimates and new empirical data. Z Psychol2019; 227: 53–63.
24.
YangSQiFDiaoH. Exploring the influence of publication retraction on citations in psychology science. In: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE joint conference on digital libraries in 2020, Virtual Event, 1–5 August 2020, pp. 501–502. New York: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM).
25.
BuddJMSievertMSchultzTRet al. Effects of article retraction on citation and practice in medicine. Bull Med Libr Assoc1999; 87: 437–443.
26.
HamiltonDG. Continued citation of retracted radiation oncology literature-do we have a problem?Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2019; 103: 1036–1042.
27.
Theis-MahonNRBakkerCJ. The continued citation of retracted publications in dentistry. J Med Libr Assoc2020; 108: 389–397.
28.
Santos-d'AmorimKRibeiro de MeloRNonato Macedo dos SantosR. Retractions and post-retraction citations in the COVID-19 infodemic: is Academia spreading misinformation?Liinc Rev2021; 17: e5593.
29.
ShuaiXRollinsJMoulinierIet al. A multidimensional investigation of the effects of publication retraction on scholarly impact. J Assoc Inf Sci Tech2017; 68: 2225–2236.
30.
FengLZYuanJPYangLY. An observation framework for retracted publications in multiple dimensions. Scientometrics2020; 125: 1445–1457.
31.
WangTXingQRWangHet al. Retracted publications in the biomedical literature from open access journals. Sci Eng Ethics2019; 25: 855–868.
32.
ShahTAGulSBashirSet al. Influence of accessibility (open and toll-based) of scholarly publications on retractions. Scientometrics2021; 126: 4589–4606.
33.
Da SilvaJATBornemann-CimentiH. Why do some retracted papers continue to be cited?Scientometrics2017; 110: 365–370.
34.
PetersonGM. Characteristics of retracted open access biomedical literature: a bibliographic analysis. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec2013; 64: 2428–2436.
35.
GarfieldE. The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA2006; 295: 90–93.
36.
ChenWXingQ-RWangHet al. Retracted publications in the biomedical literature with authors from mainland China. Scientometrics2018; 114: 217–227.
37.
CopielloS. On the skewness of journal self-citations and publisher self-citations: cues for discussion from a case study. Learn Publ. Epub ahead of print 8May2019. DOI: 10.1002/leap.1235.
AbadieADrukkerDHerrJLet al. Implementing matching estimators for average treatment effects in Stata. Stata J2004; 4: 290–311.
40.
BolboacaSDBuhaiDVAluasMet al. Post retraction citations among manuscripts reporting a radiology-imaging diagnostic method. PLoS One2019; 14: e0217918.
41.
SinSCJ. International coauthorship and citation impact: a bibliometric study of six LIS journals, 1980–2008. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec2011; 62: 1770–1783.
42.
HorbachSPJHalffmanW. The extent and causes of academic text recycling or ‘self-plagiarism’. Res Policy2019; 48: 492–502.
43.
AhlgrenPCollianderCSjögårdeP. Exploring the relation between referencing practices and citation impact: a large-scale study based on Web of Science data. J Assoc Inf Sci Tech2018; 69: 728–743.
44.
GnewuchMWohlrabeK. Title characteristics and citations in economics. Scientometrics2017; 110: 1573–1578.
45.
XieJGongKLChengYet al. The correlation between paper length and citations: a meta-analysis. Scientometrics2019; 118: 763–786.
46.
SteenRG. Retractions in the scientific literature: do authors deliberately commit research fraud?J Med Ethics2011; 37: 113–117.
47.
KoushaKAbdoliM. The citation impact of Open Access agricultural research: a comparison between OA and non-OA publications. Online Inform Rev2010; 34: 772–785.
48.
SunYYanKX. Inference on Difference-in-Differences average treatment effects: a fixed-b approach. J Econometrics2019; 211: 560–588.
49.
FurmanJLJensenKMurrayF. Governing knowledge in the scientific community: exploring the role of retractions in biomedicine. Res Policy2012; 41: 276–290.
DavisPM. The persistence of error: a study of retracted articles on the Internet and in personal libraries. J Med Libr Assoc2012; 100: 184–189.
52.
SchneiderJYeDHillAMet al. Continued post-retraction citation of a fraudulent clinical trial report, 11 years after it was retracted for falsifying data. Scientometrics2020; 125: 2877–2913.
53.
AtlasMC. Retraction policies of high-impact biomedical journals. J Med Libr Assoc2004; 92: 242–250.
54.
ResnikDBWagerEKisslingGE. Retraction policies of top scientific journals ranked by impact factor. J Med Libr Assoc2015; 103: 136–139.
55.
BakkerMWichertsJM. The (mis)reporting of statistical results in psychology journals. Behav Res Methods2011; 43: 666–678.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
