Abstract

This paper presents a case study of long-term post-retraction citation to falsified clinical trial data (Matsuyama et al. in Chest 128(6):3817–3827, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.128.6.3817), demonstrating problems with how the current digital library environment communicates retraction status. Eleven years after its retraction, the paper continues to be cited positively and uncritically to support a medical nutrition intervention, without mention of its 2008 retraction for falsifying data. To date no high quality clinical trials reporting on the efficacy of omega-3 fatty acids on reducing inflammatory markers have been published. Our paper uses network analysis, citation context analysis, and retraction status visibility analysis to illustrate the potential for extended propagation of misinformation over a citation network, updating and extending a case study of the first 6 years of post-retraction citation (Fulton et al. in Publications 3(1):7–26, 2015. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications3010017). The current study covers 148 direct citations from 2006 through 2019 and their 2542 second-generation citations and assesses retraction status visibility of the case study paper and its retraction notice on 12 digital platforms as of 2020. The retraction is not mentioned in 96% (107/112) of direct post-retraction citations for which we were able to conduct citation context analysis. Over 41% (44/107) of direct post-retraction citations that do not mention the retraction describe the case study paper in detail, giving a risk of diffusing misinformation from the case paper. We analyze 152 second-generation citations to the most recent 35 direct citations (2010–2019) that do not mention the retraction but do mention methods or results of the case paper, finding 23 possible diffusions of misinformation from these non-direct citations to the case paper. Link resolving errors from databases show a significant challenge in a reader reaching the retraction notice via a database search. Only 1/8 databases (and 1/9 database records) consistently resolved the retraction notice to its full-text correctly in our tests. Although limited to evaluation of a single case (N = 1), this work demonstrates how retracted research can continue to spread and how the current information environment contributes to this problem.

Highlights

  • Retraction formally removes a paper from the scientific literature

  • The retraction is not mentioned in 96% (107/112) of direct post-retraction citations for which we were able to conduct citation context analysis

  • Our case study showed that a purported nutritional treatment for lung disease has received continued citation for 11 years after its formal retraction from the literature in 2008, when data from the human trial promoting this treatment was deemed fake

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Retraction formally removes a paper from the scientific literature. But retraction does not end the diffusion of a paper or its findings. Studies of scholarly article reading behavior show significant changes from 1977 through 2005 (Tenopir et al 2009), such as the increased likelihood for scholars to browse across disciplinary lines, and the reduced amount of reading time per paper This rapid change in paper access and in reading behavior (and likely in citation behavior) means that we still need longitudinal data about positive post-retraction citation in the digital publishing era. Our case study on a paper retracted for presenting fake data from a human clinical trial demonstrates how retracted research can continue to spread and how the current information environment contributes to this problem. This work contributes the longest longitudinal study of continued citation of a retracted paper within the era of digital scientific publication—nearly exclusive (96%) positive post-retraction citation 11 years from the 2008 retraction through 2019. We present our results, discuss them, and conclude the paper

Related work
Methods and results
Discussion and conclusions
Findings
Compliance with ethical standards
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call