收回的研究对政策文献的传播

IF 4.1 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
D. Malkov, O. Yaqub, Josh Siepel
{"title":"收回的研究对政策文献的传播","authors":"D. Malkov, O. Yaqub, Josh Siepel","doi":"10.1162/qss_a_00243","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Retractions warn users against relying on problematic evidence. Until recently, it has not been possible to systematically examine the influence of retracted research on policy literature. Here, we use three databases to measure the extent of the phenomenon and explore what it might tell us about the users of such evidence. We identify policy-relevant documents that cite retracted research, we review and categorize the nature of citations, and we interview policy document authors. Overall, we find that 2.3% of retracted research is policy-cited. This seems higher than one might have expected, similar even to some notable benchmarks for “normal” nonretracted research that is policy-cited. The phenomenon is also multifaceted. First, certain types of retracted research (those with errors, types 1 and 4) are more likely to be policy-cited than other types (those without errors, types 2 and 3). Second, although some policy-relevant documents cite retracted research negatively, positive citations are twice as common and frequently occur after retraction. Third, certain types of policy organizations appear better at identifying problematic research and are perhaps more discerning when selecting and evaluating research.","PeriodicalId":34021,"journal":{"name":"Quantitative Science Studies","volume":"4 1","pages":"68-90"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The spread of retracted research into policy literature\",\"authors\":\"D. Malkov, O. Yaqub, Josh Siepel\",\"doi\":\"10.1162/qss_a_00243\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Retractions warn users against relying on problematic evidence. Until recently, it has not been possible to systematically examine the influence of retracted research on policy literature. Here, we use three databases to measure the extent of the phenomenon and explore what it might tell us about the users of such evidence. We identify policy-relevant documents that cite retracted research, we review and categorize the nature of citations, and we interview policy document authors. Overall, we find that 2.3% of retracted research is policy-cited. This seems higher than one might have expected, similar even to some notable benchmarks for “normal” nonretracted research that is policy-cited. The phenomenon is also multifaceted. First, certain types of retracted research (those with errors, types 1 and 4) are more likely to be policy-cited than other types (those without errors, types 2 and 3). Second, although some policy-relevant documents cite retracted research negatively, positive citations are twice as common and frequently occur after retraction. Third, certain types of policy organizations appear better at identifying problematic research and are perhaps more discerning when selecting and evaluating research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34021,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quantitative Science Studies\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"68-90\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quantitative Science Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00243\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quantitative Science Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00243","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要撤回警告用户不要依赖有问题的证据。直到最近,还不可能系统地研究撤回的研究对政策文献的影响。在这里,我们使用三个数据库来衡量这一现象的严重程度,并探讨它可能会告诉我们这些证据的使用者什么。我们确定引用撤回研究的政策相关文件,审查和分类引用的性质,并采访政策文件作者。总体而言,我们发现撤回的研究中有2.3%被政策引用。这似乎比人们预期的要高,甚至类似于政策引用的“正常”非回收研究的一些显著基准。这种现象也是多方面的。首先,某些类型的撤回研究(有错误的,类型1和4)比其他类型(没有错误的,类别2和3)更有可能被政策引用。其次,尽管一些政策相关文件对撤回的研究进行了负面引用,但正面引用的频率是撤回后的两倍。第三,某些类型的政策组织似乎更善于识别有问题的研究,在选择和评估研究时可能更具洞察力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The spread of retracted research into policy literature
Abstract Retractions warn users against relying on problematic evidence. Until recently, it has not been possible to systematically examine the influence of retracted research on policy literature. Here, we use three databases to measure the extent of the phenomenon and explore what it might tell us about the users of such evidence. We identify policy-relevant documents that cite retracted research, we review and categorize the nature of citations, and we interview policy document authors. Overall, we find that 2.3% of retracted research is policy-cited. This seems higher than one might have expected, similar even to some notable benchmarks for “normal” nonretracted research that is policy-cited. The phenomenon is also multifaceted. First, certain types of retracted research (those with errors, types 1 and 4) are more likely to be policy-cited than other types (those without errors, types 2 and 3). Second, although some policy-relevant documents cite retracted research negatively, positive citations are twice as common and frequently occur after retraction. Third, certain types of policy organizations appear better at identifying problematic research and are perhaps more discerning when selecting and evaluating research.
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
Quantitative Science Studies
Quantitative Science Studies INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
12.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
46
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊介绍:
×
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