The continued citation of retracted publications in dentistry

The relationship between methodological quality and the use of retracted publications in evidence syntheses

BACKGROUND

Evidence syntheses cite retracted publications. However, citation is not necessarily endorsement, as authors may be criticizing or refuting its findings. We investigated the sentiment of these citations-whether they were critical or supportive-and associations with the methodological quality of the evidence synthesis, reason for the retraction, and time between publication and retraction.

METHODS

Using a sample of 286 evidence syntheses containing 324 citations to retracted publications in the field of pharmacy, we used AMSTAR-2 to assess methodological quality. We used scite.ai and a human screener to determine citation sentiment. We conducted a Pearson's chi-square test to assess associations between citation sentiment, methodological quality, and reason for retraction, and one-way ANOVAs to investigate association between time, methodological quality, and citation sentiment.

RESULTS

Almost 70% of the evidence syntheses in our sample were of critically low quality. We found that these critically low-quality evidence syntheses were more associated with positive statements while high-quality evidence syntheses were more associated with negative citation of retracted publications. In our sample of 324 citations, 20.4% of citations to retracted publications noted that the publication had been retracted.

CONCLUSION

The association between high-quality evidence syntheses and recognition of a publication's retracted status may indicate that best practices are sufficient. However, the volume of critically low-quality evidence syntheses ultimately perpetuates the citation of retracted publications with no indication of their retracted status. Strengthening journal requirements around the quality of evidence syntheses may lessen the inappropriate citation of retracted publications.

Self-correction in science: The effect of retraction on the frequency of citations

We investigate the citation frequency of retracted scientific papers in science. For the period of five years before and after retraction, we counted the citations to papers in a sample of over 3,000 retracted, and a matched sample of another 3,000 non-retracted papers. Retraction led to a decrease in average annual citation frequency from about 5 before, to 2 citations after retraction. In contrast, for non-retracted control papers the citation counts were 4, and 5, respectively. Put differently, we found only a limited effect of retraction: retraction decreased citation frequency only by about 60%, as compared to non-retracted papers. Thus, retracted papers often live on. For effective self-correction the scientific enterprise needs to be more effective in removing retracted papers from the scientific record. We discuss recent proposals to do so.

Context Analysis of Continued Citation of Retracted Manuscripts Published in Anesthesiology Journals

The continued citation of retracted publications from the medical literature is a well-known and persistent problem. We describe the contexts of ongoing citations to manuscripts that have been retracted from a selection of anesthesiology journals. We also examine how bibliographic databases and publisher websites document the retracted status of these manuscripts. The authors performed an analysis of retracted publications from anesthesiology journals using the Retraction Watch database. We then examined how the retraction information was displayed on bibliographic databases, search engines, and publisher websites. The primary outcome was the context of continued citation after retraction of flawed publications within the specialty of anesthesiology. Secondary outcomes included comparison of the documentation, bibliographic databases, search engines, and publisher websites used in identifying the retracted status of these publications and provision of access to the respective retraction notices. A total of 245 original publications were retracted over a 28-year period from 9 anesthesiology journals. PubMed, compared to the other databases and search engines, was the most consistent (98.8%) in documenting the retracted status of the publications examined, as well as providing a direct link to the retraction notice. From the 211 publications retracted before January 2020, there were 1307 postretraction citations accessed from Scopus. The median number of postretraction citations was 3.5 (range, 0-88, with at least 1 citation in 164 publications) in Scopus. Of the postretraction citations, 80% affirmed the validity of the retracted publications, while only 5.2% of citations acknowledged the retraction or misconduct. In 10.2% of the citations from original research studies, retracted manuscripts appeared to influence the decision to pursue or the methods used in subsequent original research studies. The frequency of citation of the 15 most cited retracted publications declined in a similar pattern during the 10 years after retraction. Citation of manuscripts retracted from anesthesiology journals remains a common occurrence. Technological innovations and application of standards for handling retracted publications, as suggested by coalitions of researchers across the spectrum of scientific investigation, may serve to reduce the persistence of this error.

Retracted randomized controlled trials were cited and not corrected in systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether and when the correction is done in Systematic Reviews (SRs) and Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) when included Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) have been retracted.

METHODS

In this meta-epidemiological study, we included SRs and CPGs citing the retracted RCTs from the Retraction Watch Database. We investigated how often the retracted RCTs were cited in SRs and CPGs. We also investigated whether and when such SRs and CPGs corrected themselves.

RESULTS

We identified 587 articles (525 SRs and 62 CPGs) citing retracted RCTs. Among the 587 articles, 252 (43%) were published after retraction, and 335 (57%) were published before retraction. Among 127 articles published citing already retracted RCTs in their evidence synthesis without caution, none corrected themselves after publication. Of 335 articles published before retraction, 239 included RCTs that were later retracted in their evidence synthesis. Among them, only 5% of SRs (9/196) and 5% of CPGs (2/43) corrected or retracted their results.

CONCLUSION

Many SRs and CPGs included already or later retracted RCTs without caution. Most of them were never corrected. The scientific community, including publishers and researchers, should make systematic and concerted efforts to remove the impact of retracted RCTs.

Do retraction practices work effectively? Evidence from citations of psychological retracted articles

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.

Improving the Reliability of Literature Reviews: Detection of Retracted Articles through Academic Search Engines

Nowadays, a multitude of scientific publications on health science are being developed that require correct bibliographic search in order to avoid the use and inclusion of retracted literature in them. The use of these articles could directly affect the consistency of the scientific studies and could affect clinical practice. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the capacity of the main scientific literature search engines, both general (Gooogle Scholar) and scientific (PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science), used in health sciences in order to check their ability to detect and warn users of retracted articles in the searches carried out. The sample of retracted articles was obtained from RetractionWatch. The results showed that although Google Scholar was the search engine with the highest capacity to retrieve selected articles, it was the least effective, compared with scientific search engines, at providing information on the retraction of articles. The use of different scientific search engines to retrieve as many scientific articles as possible, as well as never using only a generic search engine, is highly recommended. This will reduce the possibility of including retracted articles and will avoid affecting the reliability of the scientific studies carried out.

Continued use of retracted papers: Temporal trends in citations and (lack of) awareness of retractions shown in citation contexts in biomedicine

We present the first database-wide study on the citation contexts of retracted papers, which covers 7,813 retracted papers indexed in PubMed, 169,434 citations collected from iCite, and 48,134 citation contexts identified from the XML version of the PubMed Central Open Access Subset. Compared with previous citation studies that focused on comparing citation counts using two time frames (i.e., preretraction and postretraction), our analyses show the longitudinal trends of citations to retracted papers in the past 60 years (1960-2020). Our temporal analyses show that retracted papers continued to be cited, but that old retracted papers stopped being cited as time progressed. Analysis of the text progression of pre- and postretraction citation contexts shows that retraction did not change the way the retracted papers were cited. Furthermore, among the 13,252 postretraction citation contexts, only 722 (5.4%) citation contexts acknowledged the retraction. In these 722 citation contexts, the retracted papers were most commonly cited as related work or as an example of problematic science. Our findings deepen the understanding of why retraction does not stop citation and demonstrate that the vast majority of postretraction citations in biomedicine do not document the retraction.

Does retraction after misconduct have an impact on citations? A pre-post study

Background

Retracted articles continue to be cited after retraction, and this could have consequences for the scientific community and general population alike. This study was conducted to analyse the association of retraction on citations received by retracted papers due to misconduct using two-time frames: during a postretraction period equivalent to the time the article had been in print before retraction; and during the total postretraction period.

Methods

Quasiexperimental, pre–post evaluation study. A total of 304 retracted original articles and literature reviews indexed in MEDLINE fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Articles were required to have been published in a journal indexed in MEDLINE from January 2013 through December 2015 and been retracted between January 2014 and December 2016. The main outcome was the number of citations received before and after retraction. Results were broken down by journal quartile according to impact factor and the most cited papers during the preretraction period were specifically analysed.

Results

There was an increase in postretraction citations when compared with citations received preretraction. There were some exceptions however: first, citations received by articles published in first-quartile journals decreased immediately after retraction (p<0.05), only to increase again after some time had elapsed; and second, postretraction citations decreased significantly in the case of articles that had received many citations before their retraction (p<0.05).

Conclusions

The results indicate that retraction of articles has no association on citations in the long term, since the retracted articles continue to be cited, thus circumventing their retraction.