↓ Skip to main content

Propagation of errors in citation networks: a study involving the entire citation network of a widely cited paper published in, and later retracted from, the journal Nature

Overview of attention for article published in Research Integrity and Peer Review, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#20 of 133)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
86 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Propagation of errors in citation networks: a study involving the entire citation network of a widely cited paper published in, and later retracted from, the journal Nature
Published in
Research Integrity and Peer Review, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s41073-016-0008-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul E. van der Vet, Harm Nijveen

Abstract

In about one in 10,000 cases, a published article is retracted. This very often means that the results it reports are flawed. Several authors have voiced concerns about the presence of retracted research in the memory of science. In particular, a retracted result is propagated by citing it. In the published literature, many instances are given of retracted articles that are cited both before and after their retraction. Even worse is the possibility that these articles in turn are cited in such a way that the retracted result is propagated further. We have conducted a case study to find out how a retracted article is cited and whether retracted results are propagated through indirect citations. We have constructed the entire citation network for this case. We show that directly citing articles is an important source of propagation of retracted research results. In contrast, in our case study, indirect citations do not contribute to the propagation of the retracted result. While admitting the limitations of a study involving a single case, we think there are reasons for the non-contribution of indirect citations that hold beyond our case study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 86 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 47 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 20%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Master 6 12%
Other 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 12 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 7 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 14%
Social Sciences 5 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 16 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 83. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 January 2021.
All research outputs
#519,363
of 25,658,139 outputs
Outputs from Research Integrity and Peer Review
#20
of 133 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,408
of 313,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Integrity and Peer Review
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,658,139 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 133 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 77.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 313,037 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.