You are here

Responses

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

XML
Original research
Does retraction after misconduct have an impact on citations? A pre–post study
Compose a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on: 17 November 2020
    Citation rates of Retracted Publications
    • Mark J Bolland, Associate Professor of Medicine University of Auckland
    • Other Contributors:
      • Andrew Grey, Associate Professor of Medicine

    Candal-Pedreira and colleagues showed that for 304 retracted papers, overall citations increased not decreased following retraction, but citations did seem to decrease for retracted papers in higher impact journals and those with higher citation rates, although that decrease might have been temporary.1 It is disturbing that retracted papers continue to be cited.

    We approached the issue of changes in citations rates after retraction in a different way. We assessed citation rates of retracted and unretracted publications from individuals with more than one retracted publication in the Retraction Watch database.2 Using this approach, we found that, overall, citations for 989 retracted publications declined after the retraction and citations for 9671 unretracted papers also declined after the author’s first retraction, but the decline was greater for retracted papers. For example, for retracted publications, 671 papers had 3566 citations in the 3rd year before their retraction and 831 papers had 1575 citations in the 3rd year after their retraction. In contrast, 5311 unretracted papers had 17935 citations in the 3rd year before the author’s first retraction, and 7388 papers had 17252 citations in the 3rd year after the author’s first retraction.

    Part of the difficulty in conducting and interpreting such analyses is the different lengths of time pre-and post-retraction for different papers. To try to address that issue, we calculated the slope of the citations/yea...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.