Phenomena of Retraction¶
Budd, Sievert, & Schultz. (1998). Phenomena of Retraction. JAMA.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
- Asymmetric-Amplitude Error Correction
- Journalism / newsroom corrections practice — the home turf: a front-page or lead-segment original answered by a buried corrections-column line, an un-pushed editor's note, or a walk-back segment drawing a fraction of the original audience. Scientific publishing — an indexed, cited, pushed original article versus a retraction notice published with no comparable push, often poorly linked back and not retro-cited
This sourceThe study of retracted biomedical articles finding that later work kept citing them after retraction.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
“to what extent citations of later-retracted articles continue to be incorporated in subsequent work”
- Journalism / newsroom corrections practice — the home turf: a front-page or lead-segment original answered by a buried corrections-column line, an un-pushed editor's note, or a walk-back segment drawing a fraction of the original audience. Scientific publishing — an indexed, cited, pushed original article versus a retraction notice published with no comparable push, often poorly linked back and not retro-cited
- Correction Burial
- Studies of the citation record repeatedly find retracted articles still cited approvingly for years after retraction
This sourceStudy counting 2034 post-retraction citations to 235 retracted articles, with 280 of 299 examined citations treating the retracted work as valid.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
“The 235 retracted articles were cited 2034 times after the retraction notice. Examination of 299 of those citations reveals that in only 19 instances was the retraction noted; the remaining 280 citations treated the retracted article either explicitly (n = 17) or implicitly (n = 263) as though it were valid research.”
- Studies of the citation record repeatedly find retracted articles still cited approvingly for years after retraction
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 2 of 2 citations: 2 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:d15f48693649 · see in the full table