Shuai, X.; Rollins, J.; Moulinier, I.; Custis, T.; Edmunds, M.; Schilder, F.: ¬A multidimensional investigation of the effects of publication retraction on scholarly impact (2017)
0.05
0.05215753 = sum of:
0.029860254 = product of:
0.11944102 = sum of:
0.11944102 = weight(_text_:authors in 3798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11944102 = score(doc=3798,freq=8.0), product of:
0.2371355 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.05201693 = queryNorm
0.50368255 = fieldWeight in 3798, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3798)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.022297276 = product of:
0.044594552 = sum of:
0.044594552 = weight(_text_:t in 3798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.044594552 = score(doc=3798,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20491594 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
0.05201693 = queryNorm
0.21762364 = fieldWeight in 3798, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9394085 = idf(docFreq=2338, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3798)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- During the past few decades, the rate of publication retractions has increased dramatically in academia. In this study, we investigate retractions from a quantitative perspective, aiming to answer two fundamental questions. One, how do retractions influence the scholarly impact of retracted papers, authors, and institutions? Two, does this influence propagate to the wider academic community through scholarly associations? Specifically, we analyzed a set of retracted articles indexed in Thomson Reuters Web of Science (WoS), and ran multiple experiments to compare changes in scholarly impact against a control set of nonretracted articles, authors, and institutions. We further applied the Granger Causality test to investigate whether different scientific topics are dynamically affected by retracted papers occurring within those topics. Our results show two key findings: first, the scholarly impact of retracted papers and authors significantly decreases after retraction, and the most severe impact decrease correlates with retractions based on proven, purposeful scientific misconduct; second, this retraction penalty does not seem to spread through the broader scholarly social graph, but instead has a limited and localized effect. Our findings may provide useful insights for scholars or science committees to evaluate the scholarly value of papers, authors, or institutions related to retractions.
