The (lack of) Impact of Retraction on Citation Networks

Charisse Madlock-Brown, David Eichmann

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

17 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Article retraction in research is rising, yet retracted articles continue to be cited at a disturbing rate. This paper presents an analysis of recent retraction patterns, with a unique emphasis on the role author self-cites play, to assist the scientific community in creating counter-strategies. This was accomplished by examining the following: (1) A categorization of retracted articles more complete than previously published work. (2) The relationship between citation counts and after-retraction self-cites from the authors of the work, and the distribution of self-cites across our retraction categories. (3) The distribution of retractions written by both the author and the editor across our retraction categories. (4) The trends for seven of our nine defined retraction categories over a 6-year period. (5) The average journal impact factor by category, and the relationship between impact factor, author self-cites, and overall citations. Our findings indicate new reasons for retractions have emerged in recent years, and more editors are penning retractions. The rates of increase for retraction varies by category, and there is statistically significant difference of average impact factor between many categories. 18 % of authors self-cite retracted work post retraction with only 10 % of those authors also citing the retraction notice. Further, there is a positive correlation between self-cites and after retraction citations.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)127-137
Number of pages11
JournalScience and Engineering Ethics
Volume21
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2014
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Journal Impact Factor
lack
editor
Research
scientific community
Citations
trend
Impact factor

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Health(social science)
  • Issues, ethics and legal aspects
  • Health Policy
  • Management of Technology and Innovation

Cite this

The (lack of) Impact of Retraction on Citation Networks. / Madlock-Brown, Charisse; Eichmann, David.

In: Science and Engineering Ethics, Vol. 21, No. 1, 01.01.2014, p. 127-137.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{7563dfaadf8e4f99b7ccfe164f5fca62,
title = "The (lack of) Impact of Retraction on Citation Networks",
abstract = "Article retraction in research is rising, yet retracted articles continue to be cited at a disturbing rate. This paper presents an analysis of recent retraction patterns, with a unique emphasis on the role author self-cites play, to assist the scientific community in creating counter-strategies. This was accomplished by examining the following: (1) A categorization of retracted articles more complete than previously published work. (2) The relationship between citation counts and after-retraction self-cites from the authors of the work, and the distribution of self-cites across our retraction categories. (3) The distribution of retractions written by both the author and the editor across our retraction categories. (4) The trends for seven of our nine defined retraction categories over a 6-year period. (5) The average journal impact factor by category, and the relationship between impact factor, author self-cites, and overall citations. Our findings indicate new reasons for retractions have emerged in recent years, and more editors are penning retractions. The rates of increase for retraction varies by category, and there is statistically significant difference of average impact factor between many categories. 18 {\%} of authors self-cite retracted work post retraction with only 10 {\%} of those authors also citing the retraction notice. Further, there is a positive correlation between self-cites and after retraction citations.",
author = "Charisse Madlock-Brown and David Eichmann",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s11948-014-9532-1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "21",
pages = "127--137",
journal = "Science and Engineering Ethics",
issn = "1353-3452",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The (lack of) Impact of Retraction on Citation Networks

AU - Madlock-Brown, Charisse

AU - Eichmann, David

PY - 2014/1/1

Y1 - 2014/1/1

N2 - Article retraction in research is rising, yet retracted articles continue to be cited at a disturbing rate. This paper presents an analysis of recent retraction patterns, with a unique emphasis on the role author self-cites play, to assist the scientific community in creating counter-strategies. This was accomplished by examining the following: (1) A categorization of retracted articles more complete than previously published work. (2) The relationship between citation counts and after-retraction self-cites from the authors of the work, and the distribution of self-cites across our retraction categories. (3) The distribution of retractions written by both the author and the editor across our retraction categories. (4) The trends for seven of our nine defined retraction categories over a 6-year period. (5) The average journal impact factor by category, and the relationship between impact factor, author self-cites, and overall citations. Our findings indicate new reasons for retractions have emerged in recent years, and more editors are penning retractions. The rates of increase for retraction varies by category, and there is statistically significant difference of average impact factor between many categories. 18 % of authors self-cite retracted work post retraction with only 10 % of those authors also citing the retraction notice. Further, there is a positive correlation between self-cites and after retraction citations.

AB - Article retraction in research is rising, yet retracted articles continue to be cited at a disturbing rate. This paper presents an analysis of recent retraction patterns, with a unique emphasis on the role author self-cites play, to assist the scientific community in creating counter-strategies. This was accomplished by examining the following: (1) A categorization of retracted articles more complete than previously published work. (2) The relationship between citation counts and after-retraction self-cites from the authors of the work, and the distribution of self-cites across our retraction categories. (3) The distribution of retractions written by both the author and the editor across our retraction categories. (4) The trends for seven of our nine defined retraction categories over a 6-year period. (5) The average journal impact factor by category, and the relationship between impact factor, author self-cites, and overall citations. Our findings indicate new reasons for retractions have emerged in recent years, and more editors are penning retractions. The rates of increase for retraction varies by category, and there is statistically significant difference of average impact factor between many categories. 18 % of authors self-cite retracted work post retraction with only 10 % of those authors also citing the retraction notice. Further, there is a positive correlation between self-cites and after retraction citations.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84896550525&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84896550525&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11948-014-9532-1

DO - 10.1007/s11948-014-9532-1

M3 - Article

VL - 21

SP - 127

EP - 137

JO - Science and Engineering Ethics

JF - Science and Engineering Ethics

SN - 1353-3452

IS - 1

ER -