The Continued Use of Retracted, Invalid Scientific Literature¶
Pfeifer. (1990). The Continued Use of Retracted, Invalid Scientific Literature. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
- Asymmetric-Amplitude Error Correction
- Studies of retracted literature more broadly find that retracted papers keep accruing citations for years afterward
This sourceReports that 82 fully retracted articles were cited 733 times after retraction, with retraction cutting subsequent citation by about 35%.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
“After retraction, these studies were cited, for support of scientific concepts, 733 times”
- Studies of retracted literature more broadly find that retracted papers keep accruing citations for years afterward
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This work's DOI is recorded above but has not been resolved against an external catalogue, so nothing here confirms the work exists.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:85b8726c656d · see in the full table