对印度人撰写的撤回论文的引用后和引用前的系统检查

IF 2.2 3区 管理学 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Ishfaq Ahmad Palla, Mangkhollen Singson, S. Thiyagarajan
{"title":"对印度人撰写的撤回论文的引用后和引用前的系统检查","authors":"Ishfaq Ahmad Palla,&nbsp;Mangkhollen Singson,&nbsp;S. Thiyagarajan","doi":"10.1002/leap.1572","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Retracted articles by Indian scholars have received significant attention in recent times. However, no comprehensive study has been conducted to analyse the citations of retracted papers authored by Indian researchers. This study aimed to assess the citations to retracted works published between 2001 and 2020 pre- and post-retraction. The study found that there was an increase in retractions over time, with empirical data suggesting that the number of retractions has increased significantly, from 72 papers between 2001 and 2010 to 365 papers between 2011 and 2020. Duplication (<i>n</i> = 128) and plagiarism (<i>n</i> = 119) were the primary reasons for retraction. Notably, 90% of the retracted articles continued to receive citations after retraction. Among the retracted papers, eight received more than 50 post-retraction citations, 39 received 20 to 50 citations, 347 received one to 19 citations, and 43 were not cited at all post-retraction. There was an overall 8% decrease in citations after retraction. Retractions were observed across journals of varying impact factor, with a higher number of retractions observed in journals with an impact factor of less than 5 (<i>n</i> = 286; 65%). Furthermore, smaller research teams of two to five authors accounted for 72% of the total retractions.</p>","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systematic examination of post- and pre-citation of Indian-authored retracted papers\",\"authors\":\"Ishfaq Ahmad Palla,&nbsp;Mangkhollen Singson,&nbsp;S. Thiyagarajan\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/leap.1572\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Retracted articles by Indian scholars have received significant attention in recent times. However, no comprehensive study has been conducted to analyse the citations of retracted papers authored by Indian researchers. This study aimed to assess the citations to retracted works published between 2001 and 2020 pre- and post-retraction. The study found that there was an increase in retractions over time, with empirical data suggesting that the number of retractions has increased significantly, from 72 papers between 2001 and 2010 to 365 papers between 2011 and 2020. Duplication (<i>n</i> = 128) and plagiarism (<i>n</i> = 119) were the primary reasons for retraction. Notably, 90% of the retracted articles continued to receive citations after retraction. Among the retracted papers, eight received more than 50 post-retraction citations, 39 received 20 to 50 citations, 347 received one to 19 citations, and 43 were not cited at all post-retraction. There was an overall 8% decrease in citations after retraction. Retractions were observed across journals of varying impact factor, with a higher number of retractions observed in journals with an impact factor of less than 5 (<i>n</i> = 286; 65%). Furthermore, smaller research teams of two to five authors accounted for 72% of the total retractions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51636,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Learned Publishing\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Learned Publishing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/leap.1572\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learned Publishing","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/leap.1572","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

近年来,印度学者的撤回文章受到了极大的关注。然而,尚未进行全面的研究来分析印度研究人员撰写的撤回论文的引文。本研究旨在评估2001年至2020年间发表的撤回作品在撤回前后的引用情况。该研究发现,随着时间的推移,撤回次数有所增加,经验数据表明撤回次数显著增加,从2001年至2010年的72篇论文增加到2011年至2020年的365篇。重复(n = 128)和剽窃(n = 119)是撤回的主要原因。值得注意的是,90%的撤回文章在撤回后继续被引用。在撤回的论文中,有8篇在撤回后被引用超过50次,39篇被引用20至50次,347篇被引用1至19次,43篇完全没有被引用。撤回后引用次数总体减少了8%。在不同影响因子的期刊中观察到撤回,在影响因子小于5(n = 286;65%)。此外,由两到五名作者组成的小型研究团队占撤回总数的72%。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Systematic examination of post- and pre-citation of Indian-authored retracted papers

Retracted articles by Indian scholars have received significant attention in recent times. However, no comprehensive study has been conducted to analyse the citations of retracted papers authored by Indian researchers. This study aimed to assess the citations to retracted works published between 2001 and 2020 pre- and post-retraction. The study found that there was an increase in retractions over time, with empirical data suggesting that the number of retractions has increased significantly, from 72 papers between 2001 and 2010 to 365 papers between 2011 and 2020. Duplication (n = 128) and plagiarism (n = 119) were the primary reasons for retraction. Notably, 90% of the retracted articles continued to receive citations after retraction. Among the retracted papers, eight received more than 50 post-retraction citations, 39 received 20 to 50 citations, 347 received one to 19 citations, and 43 were not cited at all post-retraction. There was an overall 8% decrease in citations after retraction. Retractions were observed across journals of varying impact factor, with a higher number of retractions observed in journals with an impact factor of less than 5 (n = 286; 65%). Furthermore, smaller research teams of two to five authors accounted for 72% of the total retractions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Learned Publishing
Learned Publishing INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
17.90%
发文量
72
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信