IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v129y2024i8d10.1007_s11192-024-05101-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Citation network analysis of retractions in molecular biology field

Author

Listed:
  • Sida Feng

    (Beijing University of Chemical Technology)

  • Lingzi Feng

    (National Science Library, Chinese Academy of Sciences)

  • Fang Han

    (National Science Library, Chinese Academy of Sciences)

  • Ye Zhang

    (Hebei Finance University)

  • Yanqing Ren

    (National Science Library, Chinese Academy of Sciences)

  • Lixue Wang

    (National Science Library, Chinese Academy of Sciences)

  • Junpeng Yuan

    (National Science Library, Chinese Academy of Sciences)

Abstract

Based on the extracted information of retracted papers from the Retraction Watch Database and the citation information of these papers from the Web of Science, we uncovered the complex relationships of retracted papers in the molecular biology domain via a citation network. The basic characteristics (i.e., time and spatial patterns, reasons, publishers) of the retracted articles were studied. Citation network analysis, including community detection and text analysis, was carried out. Our main findings are as follows: (1) The overall number of retractions in this field has been increasing over time, and these retractions have been mainly in China and the USA. (2) Most retracted papers were for both “scientific error” and “misconduct” reasons. Among the 13 reasons given, errors in the data and images accounted for the largest proportion. (3) Community structure is obvious in the citation network we constructed. In communities with five or more nodes, the average self-citation rate account for 76%. In the three largest communities 1, 2, and 3, the self-citation rate are respectively 99%, 100% and 77%. In community 6, the self-catition rate is 17%. Other papers from different teams were published in the Journal of Cellular Biochemistry (4 papers). Tumor Biology (3 papers) or Febs Letters (1 paper). The self-citation rate of community 5 is 60.00%. Most papers are from Alfredo Fusco’s team, and other ten papers are almost published in PLoS ONE. (4) The coupling relationship between citing-cited retraction reasons was revealed. Retractions and their citations were more likely to be retracted for the same reason. Most of the citing-cited papers from paper mills were published by the same publisher and even the same journal. (5) PI3K (an enzyme), WNT (a protein) and lncRNAs have recently been the major topics of retractions.

Suggested Citation

  • Sida Feng & Lingzi Feng & Fang Han & Ye Zhang & Yanqing Ren & Lixue Wang & Junpeng Yuan, 2024. "Citation network analysis of retractions in molecular biology field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(8), pages 4795-4817, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:129:y:2024:i:8:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05101-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-024-05101-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-024-05101-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-024-05101-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shakil Ahmad & Shafiq Ur Rehman & Abid Iqbal & Rai Khalid Farooq & Arslan Shahid & Muhammad Ikram Ullah, 2021. "Breast Cancer Research in Pakistan: A Bibliometric Analysis," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(3), pages 21582440211, September.
    2. Gonzalo Marco-Cuenca & José Antonio Salvador-Oliván & Rosario Arquero-Avilés, 2021. "Fraud in scientific publications in the European Union. An analysis through their retractions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 5143-5164, June.
    3. Xu, Haifeng & Ding, Yi & Zhang, Cheng & Tan, Bernard C.Y., 2023. "Too official to be effective: An empirical examination of unofficial information channel and continued use of retracted articles," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(7).
    4. Jennifer A. Byrne & Cyril Labbé, 2017. "Striking similarities between publications from China describing single gene knockdown experiments in human cancer cell lines," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(3), pages 1471-1493, March.
    5. R Grant Steen & Arturo Casadevall & Ferric C Fang, 2013. "Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-9, July.
    6. Nees Jan Eck & Ludo Waltman, 2010. "Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(2), pages 523-538, August.
    7. S. P. J. M. Horbach & W. Halffman, 2019. "The ability of different peer review procedures to flag problematic publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 339-373, January.
    8. Ali Ghorbi & Mohsen Fazeli-Varzaneh & Erfan Ghaderi-Azad & Marcel Ausloos & Marcin Kozak, 2021. "Retracted papers by Iranian authors: causes, journals, time lags, affiliations, collaborations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 7351-7371, September.
    9. Liu, Xiaojuan & Wang, Chenlin & Chen, Dar-Zen & Huang, Mu-Hsuan, 2022. "Exploring perception of retraction based on mentioned status in post-retraction citations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3).
    10. Jennifer A. Byrne & Yasunori Park & Rachael A. West & Amanda Capes-Davis & Bertrand Favier & Guillaume Cabanac & Cyril Labbé, 2021. "The thin ret(raction) line: biomedical journal responses to incorrect non-targeting nucleotide sequence reagents in human gene knockdown publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3513-3534, April.
    11. Chaomei Chen & Zhigang Hu & Jared Milbank & Timothy Schultz, 2013. "A visual analytic study of retracted articles in scientific literature," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 234-253, February.
    12. Ivan Heibi & Silvio Peroni, 2021. "A qualitative and quantitative analysis of open citations to retracted articles: the Wakefield 1998 et al.'s case," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(10), pages 8433-8470, October.
    13. Lingzi Feng & Junpeng Yuan & Liying Yang, 2020. "An observation framework for retracted publications in multiple dimensions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1445-1457, November.
    14. Qin Zhang & Juneman Abraham & Hui-Zhen Fu, 2020. "Collaboration and its influence on retraction based on retracted publications during 1978–2017," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 213-232, October.
    15. Jodi Schneider & Di Ye & Alison M. Hill & Ashley S. Whitehorn, 2020. "Continued post-retraction citation of a fraudulent clinical trial report, 11 years after it was retracted for falsifying data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2877-2913, December.
    16. Chaomei Chen & Zhigang Hu & Jared Milbank & Timothy Schultz, 2013. "A visual analytic study of retracted articles in scientific literature," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 234-253, February.
    17. Cyril Labbé & Guillaume Cabanac & Rachael A. West & Thierry Gautier & Bertrand Favier & Jennifer A. Byrne, 2020. "Flagging incorrect nucleotide sequence reagents in biomedical papers: To what extent does the leading publication format impede automatic error detection?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1139-1156, August.
    18. Qin Zhang & Hui-Zhen Fu, 2022. "Productivity patterns, collaboration and scientific careers of authors with retracted publications in clinical medicine," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 1883-1901, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Behzad Gholampour & Sajad Gholampour & Alireza Noruzi & Clément Arsenault & Thomas Haertlé & Ali Akbar Saboury, 2022. "Retracted articles in oncology in the last three decades: frequency, reasons, and themes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 1841-1865, April.
    2. Ivan Heibi & Silvio Peroni, 2021. "A qualitative and quantitative analysis of open citations to retracted articles: the Wakefield 1998 et al.'s case," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(10), pages 8433-8470, October.
    3. Salim Moussa, 2022. "The propagation of error: retracted articles in marketing and their citations," Italian Journal of Marketing, Springer, vol. 2022(1), pages 11-36, March.
    4. Lingzi Feng & Junpeng Yuan & Liying Yang, 2020. "An observation framework for retracted publications in multiple dimensions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1445-1457, November.
    5. Gonzalo Marco-Cuenca & José Antonio Salvador-Oliván & Rosario Arquero-Avilés, 2021. "Fraud in scientific publications in the European Union. An analysis through their retractions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 5143-5164, June.
    6. Tariq Ahmad Shah & Sumeer Gul & Saimah Bashir & Suhail Ahmad & Assumpció Huertas & Andrea Oliveira & Farzana Gulzar & Ashaq Hussain Najar & Kanu Chakraborty, 2021. "Influence of accessibility (open and toll-based) of scholarly publications on retractions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 4589-4606, June.
    7. Kiran Sharma, 2021. "Team size and retracted citations reveal the patterns of retractions from 1981 to 2020," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(10), pages 8363-8374, October.
    8. Jodi Schneider & Di Ye & Alison M. Hill & Ashley S. Whitehorn, 2020. "Continued post-retraction citation of a fraudulent clinical trial report, 11 years after it was retracted for falsifying data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2877-2913, December.
    9. Chen, Chaomei & Song, Min & Heo, Go Eun, 2018. "A scalable and adaptive method for finding semantically equivalent cue words of uncertainty," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 158-180.
    10. Jennifer A. Byrne & Yasunori Park & Rachael A. West & Amanda Capes-Davis & Bertrand Favier & Guillaume Cabanac & Cyril Labbé, 2021. "The thin ret(raction) line: biomedical journal responses to incorrect non-targeting nucleotide sequence reagents in human gene knockdown publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3513-3534, April.
    11. Guangwei Hu & Shaoxiong Brian Xu, 2023. "Why Research Retraction Due to Misconduct Should Be Stigmatized," Publications, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-2, March.
    12. Ashley S. Fulton & Alison M. Coates & Marie T. Williams & Peter R.C. Howe & Alison M. Hill, 2015. "Persistent Citation of the Only Published Randomised Controlled Trial of Omega-3 Supplementation in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Six Years after Its Retraction," Publications, MDPI, vol. 3(1), pages 1-10, February.
    13. María Núñez-Núñez & Naomi Cano-Ibáñez & Javier Zamora & Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas & Khalid Saeed Khan, 2023. "Assessing the Integrity of Clinical Trials Included in Evidence Syntheses," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(12), pages 1-13, June.
    14. Qin Zhang & Juneman Abraham & Hui-Zhen Fu, 2020. "Collaboration and its influence on retraction based on retracted publications during 1978–2017," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 213-232, October.
    15. Catalin Toma & Liliana Padureanu & Bogdan Toma, 2022. "Correction of the Scientific Production: Publisher Performance Evaluation Using a Dataset of 4844 PubMed Retractions," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-25, April.
    16. Lutz Bornmann & Robin Haunschild & Sven E. Hug, 2018. "Visualizing the context of citations referencing papers published by Eugene Garfield: a new type of keyword co-occurrence analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 427-437, February.
    17. Akinpelu, O.A. & Olaleye, O. & Fagbola, O., 2023. "The Soil Organic Matter Decomposers: A Bibliometric Analysis," International Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Research, Malwa International Journals Publication, vol. 9(4), August.
    18. Muhammad Farooq Islam & Ozge Can, 2024. "Integrating digital and sustainable entrepreneurship through business models: a bibliometric analysis," Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, Springer;UNESCO Chair in Entrepreneurship, vol. 14(1), pages 1-18, December.
    19. Gaviria-Marin, Magaly & Merigó, José M. & Baier-Fuentes, Hugo, 2019. "Knowledge management: A global examination based on bibliometric analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 194-220.
    20. J. Gómez-Verjan & I. Gonzalez-Sanchez & E. Estrella-Parra & R. Reyes-Chilpa, 2015. "Trends in the chemical and pharmacological research on the tropical trees Calophyllum brasiliense and Calophyllum inophyllum, a global context," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(2), pages 1019-1030, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Retractions; Molecular biology; Citation network; Retracted reasons;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • O30 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - General
    • L86 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Information and Internet Services; Computer Software

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:129:y:2024:i:8:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05101-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.