Inappropriate Citations Research Articles

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

BackgroundEvidence 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.MethodsUsing 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.ResultsAlmost 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 In our sample of 324 citations, 20.4% of citations to retracted publications noted that the publication had been retracted.ConclusionThe association between high-quality evidence syntheses and recognition of a publication’s retracted status may indicate that best practices are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.

Applied linguistics journal editor perspectives: Research ethics and academic publishing

Concern for research integrity and ethics has been a part of scholarly publishing since the earliest scientific journals were published. At the same time, scholarly publishing is big business. Thus, journal editors must manage publication interests as well as research integrity and ethical issues. As ethics and integrity are deeply embedded in the research process, not only in terms of treatment of human subjects or methods for collecting, analyzing, and presenting but also in all aspects of publishing, we investigate the role of journal editors in scholarly publishing for applied linguistics. Specifically, we examine the issues/challenges applied linguistics journal editors face in relation to research integrity and ethics, their knowledge, beliefs and practices, through an anonymous online survey. Results show that the most serious issue identified by the editors was finding sufficient expert reviewers. Other issues included plagiarism, redundant publications and inappropriate citations. However, in general, editors did not feel most of the listed ethical issues were serious problems (e.g. interference in editorial decisions, inappropriate image manipulation) or they did not know if the issues were a problem (e.g. unacknowledged writers, inappropriate acknowledgements). We conclude by offering recommendations for ways forward and by suggesting further research, including studies with a more dialogic approach which would allow editors to voice their perspectives and investigations of local communities of practice which might supersede universality assumptions of research integrity and ethics.

P-385 Are you completely aware of your citations? A cross-sectional study on improper citations of retracted articles in medically assisted reproduction

Abstract Study question Are authors aware that they have cited a retracted paper in their manuscripts in medically assisted reproduction (MAR)? Summary answer Most corresponding authors were unaware of their own inappropriate retracted citations, mainly due to improper notification of retraction status. What is known already Retraction is a severe penalty in scientific research for various reasons, ranging from honest mistakes made in good faith to deliberate misbehaviour. Scientific publications with compromised integrity should be retracted and, once retracted, only be cited in the context of that retraction. However, it has long been recognized that large numbers of citations of retracted papers occur, usually without mentioning the retraction. Concern about the study of inappropriate citation of retracted articles has been gaining momentum in recent years. However, this topic has yet to be considered in medically assisted reproduction. Study design, size, duration From December 23, 2022 to January 29, 2023, a cross-sectional study based on an online survey was conducted to acquire information on the irregular citation pattern from corresponding authors who cited a retracted article. The survey was set up in Google Forms and included seven questions. The survey was distributed via e-mail to corresponding authors who cited a retracted paper in their study using the Mailchimp platform. Three reminders were sent about ten days apart. Participants/materials, setting, methods A dataset of retracted articles in MAR published up to July 2022 was collected from PubMed and Retraction Watch, according to our systematic review (registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020185769). For each retracted article, a complete list of cited articles published was retrieved from PubMed and Google Scholar. Search, and screening were performed independently by two authors, and any disagreement about the eligibility of a study was resolved through discussion with a third author. Main results and the role of chance Forty-three MAR retracted articles were selected, of which 36 were included. Specifically, manuscripts that cited a retracted article in the year of publication of the retraction notice or the following year were excluded from this analysis (n = 7) to reduce instances of citation by authors potentially unaware of the retraction of the cited article. The survey was sent to 267 corresponding authors and 39 filled out the survey (participation rate 14.6%). Most respondents (79.5%) were unaware of the retraction status of the cited articles, mainly due to inadequate notification of retraction status in the research database (33.3%), inadequate notification of retraction status in the journal (24.2%), or use of stored copies of the retracted manuscript (15.2%). Regarding bibliography building, 48.7% of respondents declared that they use both online databases and previously printed copies to search scientific manuscripts. Notably, the majority of authors (61.5%) declared that references were entered and checked by only one author before submission and that, during the review process, no one received concerns from editors and/or reviewers about the retracted references. Finally, according to 53.8% of participants, no check of retraction notices is performed, while only 12.8% check both the journal website and scientific databases. Limitations, reasons for caution This online survey on citation inappropriateness provided some insight into the justifications correlated with it. Despite the approach used to identify retracted articles in the context of MAR and citations, some may have been missed. In addition, incorrect or disused e-mail addresses constituted a limitation for this study. Wider implications of the findings Correcting publications containing references that are subsequently retracted is significant for systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and guidelines. Citations of retracted articles perpetuate erroneous scientific data, even though assessing the accuracy of citations requires considerable effort. Proper notification of retraction status and cross-checking of citations can help prevent errors. Trial registration number N/A

Inappropriate Citation of Retracted Articles in Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine Publications.

Retracted articles represent research withdrawn from the existing body of literature after publication. Research articles may be retracted for several reasons ranging from honest errors to intentional misconduct. They should not be used as reliable sources, and it is unclear why they are cited occasionally by other articles. This study hypothesized that several mechanisms may contribute to citing retracted literature and aimed to analyze the characteristics of articles citing retracted literature in anesthesiology and critical care. Using the Retraction Watch database, we retrieved retracted articles on anesthesiology and intensive care medicine up to August 16, 2021, and identified the papers citing these retracted articles. A survey designed to investigate the reasons for citing these articles was sent to the corresponding authors of the citing papers. We identified 478 retracted articles, 220 (46%) of which were cited at least once. We contacted 1297 corresponding authors of the papers that cited these articles, 417 (30%) of whom responded to our survey and were included in the final analysis. The median number of authors in the analyzed articles was five, and the median elapsed time from retraction to citation was 3 yr. Most of the corresponding authors (372, 89%) were unaware of the retracted status of the cited article, mainly because of inadequate notification of the retraction status in journals and/or databases and the use of stored copies. The corresponding authors were generally unaware of the retraction of the cited article, usually because of inadequate identification of the retracted status in journals and/or web databases and the use of stored copies. Awareness of this phenomenon and rigorous control of the cited references before submitting a paper are of fundamental importance in research.

Retracted systematic reviews continued to be frequently cited: a citation analysis

Background and ObjectivesTo survey the citations of retracted non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) in scientific literature. MethodsWe searched the Web of Science and Google Scholar from their inception to 30 April 2020 to find the citations of 153 previously identified retracted non-Cochrane SRs. We calculated the numbers of citations before and after retraction separately. We also described how the citation addressed the retraction and how it was used in the article. ResultsA We identified 954 citations of 128 retracted SRs. The number of retracted SRs and citations reached the peak in 2014 and 2016, respectively, and the majority of the citations (n = 580, 60.8%) were in articles published after the SR was retracted. The mean number of citation per retracted SRs was 7.5. 2.6 before and 4.5 after the publication of the retraction notice. Twenty-nine (5.0%) citations indicated the retraction of the SRs in the reference section. Nine of these citations supported the retracted SR's results, and 15 disagreed with them. ConclusionRetracted SRs continue to be cited after the publication of the retraction notice. Standardized methods are needed to guide the management of retractions and avoid inappropriate citations of retracted articles.

Fraude scientifique : une menace majeure pour la recherche médicale

Scientific misconduct (fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism) and detrimental research practices (selective reporting of data, inappropriate citation practice, ghostwriting) are admitted respectively by 2 % and 33 % of researchers. The consequences of scientific misconduct and detrimental research practices are disastrous, both for the doctors, who are the most affected researchers in view of the number of retracted articles, and for the patients, victims of false information that may have health consequences. In order to fight against the causes (promotion of doctors and allocation of resources to clinical wards and laboratories on purely quantitative research criteria, lack of training in scientific integrity in medical studies, heterogenous quality of reviewing, legal impunity), there are legislative, academic, technological and editorial solutions, but radical and urgent cultural change is needed first.

Reply to “A critical analysis of Vacca, A., Aru, F., and Ollesch, G. (2017). Short‐term impact of coppice management on soil in a Quercus ilex L. stand of Sardinia. Land Degradation & Development, 28(2), 553–565.” by Giadrossich and Guastini

AbstractIn their critical review of Vacca, Aru, and Ollesch (2017), Giadrossich and Guastini noted substantial deficiencies in the research design and methodology, analysis and interpretation of data, and conclusions in the paper that are not supported by the findings. In this reply, we (a) reiterated the aim of our study, (b) provided the evidence that similar research designs are not rare in soil studies, (c) provided the evidence that Giadrossich and Guastini misused our data in their analysis and interpretation, and (d) highlighted that Giadrossich and Guastini used inappropriate citations. Consequently, our findings and conclusions that coppicing has negative short‐term impacts on the soil and that the short‐term soil erosion risk must be considered very high in coppicing management are unaffected by the comments from Giadrossich and Guastini.

Letter to the editor

A mistake of using pseudo-first-order kinetic equation for testing kinetic parameters of adsorption has been pointed out, as well as inappropriate citations for the adsorption kinetic models. Further, this discussion gives a correct pseudo-first-order kinetic equation and makes a suggestion for citing the original papers for the pseudo-second-order and intra-particle diffusion kinetic equations.

Comments on “Enhanced removal of Cr(VӀ) from aqueous solution by supported ZnO nanoparticles on biochar derived from waste water hyacinth”

A mistake of using pseudo-first-order kinetic equation for testing kinetic parameters of adsorption has been pointed out, as well as inappropriate citations for the adsorption kinetic models. Further, this discussion gives a correct pseudo-first-order kinetic equation and makes a suggestion for citing the original papers for the pseudo-second-order and intra-particle diffusion kinetic equations.

Appropriateness of Pediatrics Case Reports Citations.

We determined types of peer-reviewed articles that cited Pediatrics case reports and whether citations were "appropriate" or "inappropriate." The 20 most highly cited Pediatrics case reports published between January 2011 and April 2016 were identified. All articles referencing these 20 case reports were analyzed for appropriateness of the citation. Appropriate citations referred to the original article specifically as a case report or cited the case report in support of general knowledge. Inappropriate citations used case reports to infer causation, support proof of mechanism, or were deemed irrelevant to claims being supported. Two authors independently coded all citations. These 20 case reports were cited in 479 articles (median: 24 citations per case report). In most articles (83.6%, n = 367), case reports were cited appropriately; in 53.4% (n = 196) of articles, a case report was specifically referred to, and in 46.6% (n = 171) of articles, the case report was used to support general knowledge. For inappropriate citations, in 63.3% (n = 50) of articles, case reports were used to infer causation; in 15.2% (n = 12) of articles, they were used as proof of mechanism of pathogenesis or treatment; and in 21.5% (n = 17) of articles, they were irrelevant. Case reports were most commonly cited in review articles (38.7%, n = 170) and original studies (31%, n = 136). "Original studies" were articles in which authors reported original data, excluding case reports. These results reveal that most citations of Pediatrics case reports are appropriate.

Nested self-citation: the citation of a paper’s least divisible unit

Try to imagine that a figure, a table or an explanatory box in your main manuscript gets cited, in addition to citations to the main paper. Some scientists would no doubt be ecstatic at this unrealistic opportunity of gathering additional citations. This paper highlights a case in which a text box (Unger and Couzin in Science 312(5770):40---41, 2006. doi:10.1126/science.312.5770.40) within a larger paper (Couzin and Unger in Science 312(5770):38---43, 2006. doi:10.1126/science.312.5770.38), as well as the paper itself, are both cited, 33 and 8 times, respectively, according to Clarivate Analytics' (formerly Thomson Reuters) Web of Science. Both papers were published in AAAS' Science. This paper explores details of these citations and shows how four papers between 2007 and 2015 have cited both papers, including the text box. The argument is put forward that citation of least divisible units of a paper, in this case, a text box, are unfair citation practices, and since they refer to the citation of a part of the same paper, the term "nested self-citation" has been coined. Given the attention given in recent times to citation manipulation, citation rings and inappropriate citations, the risks of nested self-citations, including the skewing of citation counts, and of not correcting potentially misleading information, need to be explored.

Potentially coercive self-citation by peer reviewers: A cross-sectional study

ObjectivePeer reviewers sometimes request that authors cite their work, either appropriately or via coercive self-citation to highlight the reviewers' work. The objective of this study was to determine in peer reviews submitted to one biomedical journal (1) the extent of peer reviewer self-citation; (2) the proportion of reviews recommending revision or acceptance versus rejection that included reviewer self-citations; and (3) the proportion of reviewer self-citations versus citations to others that included a rationale. MethodsPeer reviews for manuscripts submitted in 2012 to the Journal of Psychosomatic Research were evaluated. Data extraction was performed independently by two investigators. ResultsThere were 616 peer reviews (526 reviewers; 276 manuscripts), of which 444 recommended revision or acceptance and 172 rejection. Of 428 total citations, there were 122 peer reviewer self-citations (29%) and 306 citations to others' work (71%). Self-citations were more common in reviews recommending revision or acceptance (105 of 316 citations; 33%) versus rejection (17/112; 15%; p<0.001). The percentage of self-citations with no rationale (26 of 122; 21%) was higher than for citations to others' work (15 of 306; 5%; p<0.001). ConclusionsSelf-citation in peer reviews is common and may reflect a combination of appropriate citation to research that should be cited in published articles and inappropriate citation intended to highlight the work of the peer reviewer. Providing instructions to peer reviewers about self-citation and asking them to indicate when and why they have self-cited may help to limit self-citation to appropriate, constructive recommendations.

The impact of impact factors and the ethics of publication

But not all measurement is science. The introduction of Journal impact factors was a logical step for librarians to take efficient stock of their holdings. However, it is a lazy step for Academics to measure science. The impact factor of a Journal is defined as a quotient and calculated by dividing the total annual number of citations by the total number of citable articles published. However, problems arise because the impact factor is an arithmetic mean. If one journal publishes 100 papers each of which is cited three times the impact factor is 3 and treated as equivalent to a second journal in which 99 papers receive no citations and one paper receives 300 citations. The equation which best describes the mathematical distribution of Journal impact factors is still disputed but it appears to be power function (i.e., more often like the second case described above than the first). Another problem with impact factor is that the denominator of the quotient (number of citable articles) is not objective, i.e., which articles are deemed citable? One impact of impact factors has been to increase unethical editorial practices. A record number of journals (66) were removed by Thompson Reuters in the journal citation list this year [1]. These Journals were banned for citation stacking and excessive self-citation. A recent article in Science described a predictive model of the factors which influence coercive self-citation using game theory [2]. Editors are more likely to coerce authors to include inappropriate citations of their journal if the authors are of junior rank, the paper has few authors and is published by a commercial company. Certain insidious practices are also commonplace such as insisting authors always cite a particular journal article which describes a guide to methods or ironically a guide to ethical practice. Perhaps the most positive impact of impact factors is that it may stimulate editors to reflect on the true purpose of their particular Journal. While it is important that ground breaking discoveries are published in Journals with high citation records, such discoveries should be rare and consequently these kinds of Journals should also be rare. The Irish Journal of Medical Science is the principal publication instrument of the Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland. It has the purpose of representing the current research activities of the Academy’s sections. Although focused on Irish Medical Science it retains a truly global impact. It is now accessible in 7,844 institutions worldwide and North America has the largest percentage of downloads. Potential authors should be assured that their original research will reach a broad readership which appropriately reflects the diverse branches of Medical Science found on the pages of this Journal.

Reply to

Reply to

Two first-year students’ strategies for writing from sources: Patchwriting or plagiarism?

In this paper we report a case study of two first-year students at a university in Hong Kong doing the same writing assignment that required the use of sources. We explore the students’ understanding of plagiarism, their strategies for composing, the similarity between their texts and source texts, and the lecturer's assessment of their work. The analyses in the study drew upon textual comparisons between student texts and source texts, interview data, and observation notes. The data indicated that both students appeared to understand the university's plagiarism policy yet their texts were characterized by patchwriting and inappropriate citation. Only one student's problems were spotted by the lecturer and checked with Turnitin while the other's was hidden to the lecturer. We speculate about the reasons, and then discuss these issues related to students’ writing from sources: the place of reading in a source-based assignment, the difficulty level of sources for an assignment in an introductory course, complexities of attribution in source-based writing assignments, and the place of patchwriting in the work of novice writers. We conclude by highlighting the challenges faced by teachers and researchers and echo with others that different labels need to be given to plagiarism as cheating versus misuse of source texts.

Retracted: Tetraoxanes: Synthetic and medicinal chemistry perspective

AbstractThe following article from Medicinal Research Reviews, Tetraoxanes: Synthetic and medicinal chemistry perspective by Nitin Kumar, Ram Singh, Diwan S. Rawat, published online on 21 December 2009 in Wiley Online Library (http://www.wileyonlinelibrary.com), has been retracted by agreement between the authors, the journal Editor in Chief, Binghe Wang and Wiley Periodicals, Inc. The retraction has been agreed due to inappropriate citation of previously published work.

Another joint statement regarding learning disabilities, dyslexia, and vision—A rebuttal

Several medical organizations have published yet another joint statement trivializing vision therapy and vision disorders in the learning-disabled population. A review of the references in the joint statement as well as other references find that the joint statement is misleading because of inappropriate citations and selected references, as was the case with previous joint statements. The most current joint statement ignores the results of evidence-based research and makes recommendations regarding the treatment of convergence insufficiency that have no scientific validity. Ophthalmology should not allow professional rivalry to cloud its judgment regarding optometry's involvement in the diagnosis and treatment of learning-related vision problems.

Weeds in the flower garden: An exploration of plagiarism in graduate students' research proposals and its connection to enculturation, ESL, and contextual factors

Existing literature provides insight into the nature and extent of plagiarism amongst undergraduate students (e.g., Ellery, 2008; Parameswaran &amp; Devi, 2006; Selwyn, 2008). Plagiarism amongst graduate students is relatively unstudied, however, and the existing data are largely based on self-reports. This study investigated the rates and potential causes of plagiarism amongst graduate students in master's and doctoral programmes in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and science or mathematics education by examining actual research proposals written by graduate students. Results indicate that plagiarism is a prevalent issue at each of the three university sites sampled and across all of the investigated disciplines. Fine grained analyses suggest that this plagiarism may be largely unintentional and due to a lack of disciplinary enculturation. Specifically, participants that plagiarised had approximately one less semester of research experience than graduate students who did not plagiarise. Furthermore, participants who lacked primary literature in their research proposals were significantly more likely to plagiarise and often used inappropriate citation styles. Follow-up correspondence with participants indicates that participants plagiarised, in part, because they lacked an awareness of the role of primary literature in the research process. This suggests that explicit training in the role and use of primary literature may provide an opportunity for programmes or mentors to accelerate the development of graduate students' research skills. This study also revealed that plagiarism was more common amongst English as a Second Language (ESL) participants. Potential causes of plagiarism and solutions to address plagiarism among the ESL population will be discussed.&#x0D; &#x0D; This paper is based on an earlier version presented at The Center for Academic Integrity 2009 Annual International Conference.

The effectiveness of the practice of correction and republication in the biomedical literature

This research measures the effectiveness of the practice of correction and republication of invalidated articles in the biomedical literature by analyzing the rate of citation of the flawed and corrected versions of scholarly articles over time. If the practice of correction and republication is effective, then the incidence of citation of flawed versions should diminish over time and increased incidence of citation of the republication should be observed. This is a bibliometric study using citation analysis and statistical analysis of pairs of flawed and corrected articles in MEDLINE and Web of Science. The difference between citation levels of flawed originals and corrected republications does not approach statistical significance until eight to twelve years post-republication. Results showed substantial variability among bibliographic sources in their provision of authoritative bibliographic information. Correction and republication is a marginally effective biblioremediative practice. The data suggest that inappropriate citation behavior may be partly attributable to author ignorance.

Inappropriate citations used to describe the pharmacology of botulinum toxin type A preparations in clinical use and Response to letter to the editor by Zakine et al. Ongoing discussion on the pharmacology of botulinum toxin type A formulations: conclusions of adult spasticity consensus are correct in this respect

Inappropriate citations used to describe the pharmacology of botulinum toxin type A preparations in clinical use and Response to letter to the editor by Zakine et al. Ongoing discussion on the pharmacology of botulinum toxin type A formulations: conclusions of adult spasticity consensus are correct in this respect