Retractions and post-retraction citations in the COVID-19 infodemic: is Academia spreading misinformation?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18617/liinc.v17i1.5593Palabras clave:
Retracted articles, Retracted preprints, COVID-19, Misinformation, Infodemic, Post-retraction citationsResumen
The speed in producing information and the rush to publish scientific articles on COVID-19 in several knowledge areas have resulted in what is known as an infodemic also in the scientific field, potentially producing inaccurate information and sources of misinformation at scholarly communication. This has led to some articles being retracted or withdrawn due to unintentional errors or deliberate misconduct, but they continue to be cited. This article (i) gives an overview of the COVID-19 retracted articles and preprints, and (ii) analyses a set of post-retraction citations in the context of the COVID-19 infodemic. We analyzed 56 retracted articles and preprints by using the list available in the section on “retracted coronavirus (COVID-19) papers” in the Retraction Watch (RW) webpage. We found that 64.3% of these retractions were articles published in journals, 33.9% were uploaded in preprints servers, and 1.8% conference papers. We also analyzed 162 eligible articles out of 612 records identified by using the Google Scholar search engine. This research found that an article from The Lancet continued to be cited even after being retracted. In this case, we identified 214 post-retraction citations, of which 38% were negative (n=81), 32% were neutral (n=69), and 30% were positive citations (n=64)
Referencias
BAR-ILAN, J.; HALEVI, G. Post retraction citations in context: a case study. Scientometrics, v. 113, p. 547-565, 2017. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-017-2242-0. Access on: 3 Sept. 3, 2020.
BORNMANN, L.; DANIEL, H.-D. What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation, v. 64, n. 1, p. 45-80, 2008. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410810844150. Access on: Sept. 15, 2020
BORNMANN, L.; HAUNSCHILD, R.; HUG, S. E. Visualizing the context of citations referencing papers published by Eugene Garfield: a new type of keyword co-occurrence analysis. Scientometrics, v. 144, p. 427-437, 2018. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2591-8. Access on: Sept. 15, 2020.
BRAMSTEDT, K. The carnage of substandard research during the COVID-19 pandemic: a call for quality. Journal of Medical Ethics, v. 46, p. 803–807, 2020. DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106494. Available from: https://jme.bmj.com/content/46/12/803. Access on: Jan. 3, 2021.
CAVALCANTI, A. B. et al. Hydroxychloroquine with or without Azithromycin in Mild-to-Moderate Covid-19. The New England Journal of Medicine, v. 383, p. 2041-2052, 2020. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2019014. Available from: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2019014. Access on: Jan. 31, 2021.
ELSE, H. How a torrent of COVID science changed research publishing - in seven charts. Nature, v. 588, p. 553, 2020. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03564-y. Access on: Jan. 3, 2021.
FALLIS, D. A conceptual analysis of disinformation. In: iCONFERENCE, 2009, Chapel Hill, Proceedings […]. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 2009. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/2142/15205. Access on: Jan. 17, 2021.
FALLIS, Don, 2014. A Functional Analysis of Disinformation. In: iCONFERENCE, 2014, Berlin, Proceedings […]. Berlin: University Humboldt, 2014. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/2142/47258. Access on: Jan. 17, 2021.
FANELLI, D. Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign. Plos Medicine, v. 10, n. 12: e1001563, 2013. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001563.g002. Access on: Jan. 17, 2021.
FANG, F.; CASADEVALL, A. Retracted Science and the Retraction Index. Infection and Immunity, v. 79, n. 10, p. 3855-3859, 2011. DOI: 10.1128/IAI.05661-11. Available from: https://iai.asm.org/content/79/10/3855. Access on: Dec. 15, 2020.
FEINE, J.; JAKUBOVICS, N. Science in the Spotlight: A Crisis of Confidence? JDR Clinical & Translational Research, v. 6, n. 1, p. 4-7, 2021. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2380084420976358. Access on: Jan. 17, 2021.
FLORIDI, L. Is Semantic Information Meaningful Data? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, v. 70, n. 2, p. 351-370, 2005. DOI: 10.1111/j.1933-1592.2005.tb00531.x. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2005.tb00531.x. Access on: Jan. 17, 2021.
FOX, C. J. Information and misinformation: An investigation of the notions of information, misinformation, informing, and misinforming. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1983.
KARLOVA, N.; FISHER, K. A social diffusion model of misinformation and disinformation for understanding human information behavior. Information Research, v. 18, n. 1, 2013. Available from: http://www.informationr.net/ir/18-1/paper573.html#.YASiauhKjIU. Access on: Jan. 17, 2021.
KARLOVA, N.; LEE, J. H. Notes from the underground city of disinformation: A conceptual investigation. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, v. 48, n. 1, p. 01-09, 2012. Available from: https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/meet.2011.14504801133. Access on: Jan. 17, 2021.
KWON, D. How swamped preprint servers are blocking bad coronavirus research. Nature, v. 581, p. 130-131, 2020. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-020-01394-6. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01394-6. Access on: Jan. 3, 2021.
LEI, Z.-N. et al. Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of malaria and repurposing in treating COVID-19. Pharmacology & Therapeutics, v. 2016, p. 1-13, 2020. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pharmthera.2020.107672. Access on: Oct. 25, 2020.
MARIN, L. Three contextual dimensions of information on social media: lessons learned from the COVID-19 infodemic. Ethics and Information Technology, 2020. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-020-09550-2#citeas. Access on: 5 Jan. 5, 2021.
MEHRA, M. R.; RUSCHITZKA, F.; PATEL, A. N. Retraction—Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis. The Lancet, v. 395, n. 10240, p. 1820, 2020. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31324-6. Access on: Sept. 5, 2020.
MERTON, R. K. Priorities in Scientific Discovery: A Chapter in the Sociology of Science. American Sociological Review, v. 22, n. 6, p. 635-659, 1957. DOI: 10.2307/2089193. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2089193?seq=1. Access on: Jan. 10, 2021.
MOED, H. F. et al. The use of bibliometric data for the measurement of university research performance. Research Policy, v. 14, n. 3, p. 131-149, 1985. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(85)90012-5. Access on: Sept. 28, 2020.
MOHAMED, K.; REZAEI, N. COVID-19 pandemic is not the time of trial and error. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 2020. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2020.09.020. Access on: Nov. 20, 2020.
OFFORD, C. The Surgisphere Scandal: What Went Wrong? The Scientist, Oct. 2020. Available from: https://www.the-scientist.com/features/the-surgisphere-scandal-what-went-wrong--67955. Access on: Oct. 15, 2020.
OXFORD English Dictionary. Infodemic. OED Third Edition, Apr. 2020. Available from: https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/88407009. Access on: Dec. 15, 2020.
PALAYEW, A. et al. Pandemic publishing poses a new COVID-19 challenge. Nature Human Behaviour, v. 4, p. 666-669, 2020. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0911-0. Access on: Sept. 28, 2020.
PENNYCOOK, G. et al. Fighting COVID-19 Misinformation on Social Media: Experimental Evidence for a Scalable Accuracy-Nudge Intervention. Psychological Science, v. 31, n. 7, p. 770- 780, 2020. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620939054. Access on: Nov. 11, 2020.
PILLER, C. Who’s to blame? These three scientists are at the heart of the Surgisphere COVID-19 scandal. Science, June 2020. Available from: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/whos-blame-these-three-scientists-are-heart-surgisphere-covid-19-scandal. Access on: Oct. 6, 2020.
QUINN, E. K. The Instagram Infodemic: Cobranding of Conspiracy Theories, Coronavirus Disease 2019 and Authority-Questioning Beliefs. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, Dec. 2020. Available from: http://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.0663. Access on: Sept. 28, 2020.
RESNIK, D. B.; STEWART, N. Misconduct versus Honest Error and Scientific Disagreement. Accountability in Research, v. 19, n. 1, p. 56–63, 2012. DOI 10.1080/08989621.2012.650948. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3443861/. Access on: Jan. 17, 2020.
RETRACTION Watch database, 2019. Retracted coronavirus (COVID-19) papers. Retraction Watch, 2019. Available from: https://retractionwatch.com/retracted-coronavirus-covid-19-papers/. Access on: Dec. 15, 2020.
SCHNEIDER, J. et al. Continued post-retraction citation of a fraudulent clinical trial report, 11 years after it was retracted for falsifying data. Scientometrics, v. 125, p. 2877-2913, 2020. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03631-1. Access on: Nov. 10, 2020.
SHADISH, W R. et al. Author judgments about works they cite – three studies from psychology journals. Social Studies of Science, v. 25, n. 3, p. 477-498, 1995. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/030631295025003003. Access on: Nov. 10, 2020.
STEEN, R. G. Retractions in the medical literature: how many patients are put at risk by flawed research? Journal of Medical Ethics, v. 37, p. 688-692, 2011. DOI: 10.1136/jme.2011.043133. Available from: https://jme.bmj.com/content/37/11/688. Access on: Nov. 10, 2020.
STEPHENS, M. A geospatial infodemic: Mapping Twitter conspiracy theories of COVID 19. Dialogues in Human Geography, v. 10, n. 2, p. 276-281, 2020. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2043820620935683. Access on: Dec. 22, 2020.
SWIRE‐THOMPSON, B.; LAZER, D. Public health and online misinformation: Challenges and recommendations. Annual Review of Public Health, v. 41, n. 1, p. 433–451, 2020. Available from: https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094127#. Access on: Jan. 17, 2021.
TEIXEIRA DA SILVA, J. A.; BORNEMANN-CIMENTI, H. Why do some retracted papers continue to be cited? Scientometrics, v. 110, p. 365-370, 2017. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11192-016-2178-9. Access on: Nov. 10, 2020.
TEIXEIRA DA SILVA, J. A.; DOBRÁNSZKI, J. Highly cited retracted papers. Scientometrics, v. 110, p. 1653-1661, 2017. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11192-016-2227-4. Access on: Nov. 10, 2020.
VLASSCHAERT, C. et al. Proliferation of Papers and Preprints During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: Progress or Problems With Peer Review? Advances in chronic kidney disease, v. 27, no. 5, p. 418–426, 2020. DOI 10.1053/j.ackd.2020.08.003. Available from: https://www.ackdjournal.org/article/S1548-5595(20)30119-1/fulltext#%20. Access on: Nov. 10, 2020.
WAGER, E. Retractions: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Croatian Medical Journal, v. 50, n. 6, p. 532–535, 2009. DOI: 10.3325/cmj.2009.50.532. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2802086/. Access on: Jan. 5, 2021.
WARDLE, C.; DERAKHSHAN, H. Thinking about ‘information disorder’: formats of misinformation, disinformation, and mal-information. In: IRETON, C.; POSETTI, J. Journalism, ‘fake news’ & disinformation. Paris: UNESCO; 2018. p. 43-54. Available from: https://bit.ly/2FW3Esb. Access on: Jan. 17, 2021.
ZAROCOSTAS, J. How to fight an infodemic. The Lancet, v. 395, n. 10225, p. 676, 2020. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30461-X. Access on: Nov. 26, 2020.
Descargas
Publicado
Número
Sección
Licencia
Autores que publicam na Liinc em Revista concordam com os seguintes termos:
Autores mantém os direitos autorais e concedem à revista o direito de primeira publicação, com o trabalho simultaneamente licenciado sob a Licença Creative Commons Atribuição 4.0 Internacional, que permite o compartilhamento do trabalho com reconhecimento da autoria e publicação inicial nesta revista.
Consulte a Política de Acesso Livre e Autoarquivamento para informações permissão de depósitos de versões pré-print de manuscritos e artigos submetidos ou publicados à/pela Liinc em Revista.
Liinc em Revista, publicada pelo Instituto Brasileiro de Informação em Ciência e Tecnologia, é licenciada sob os termos da Licença Creative Commons Atribuição 4.0 Internacional – CC BY 4.0