Evaluating Citations and Retractions of 71 Write a Scientific Paper Guidelines

2026/02/04 by Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, Serhii Nazarovets · 1 voice
Arts and Humanities · Decision Sciences · #Academic Writing and Publishing #Meta-analysis and systematic reviews #scientometrics and bibliometrics research

paper · doi:10.1080/10875301.2026.2622096

openalex publication_date 2026/02/04 · openalex created_date 2026/02/07 · openalex updated_date 2026/06/15

Abstract

A citation analysis was conducted on 71 Write a Scientific Paper (WASP) best practice guidelines (BPGs) published in Elsevier’s Early Human Development (EHD) during 2018–2019, exclusively by University of Malta researchers. By 18 January 2026, the 71 WASP BPGs had accumulated a total of 555 citations, with Victor Grech and Sarah Cuschieri gaining a total of 336 and 165 citations, respectively. An editorial expression of concern, published in 2021, encompasses 48 of the WASP BPGs, and of the 71 BPGs, 30 (42%) have been retracted. Amassing independent BPGs in a single journal with poor corrective measures carries risks.

Citations

• Bibliometric analysis of 71 best practice guidelines (WASP) related to scientific writing

Discussions

• Can we trust “guidelines on how to write a scientific paper”? We analysed 71 “Write a Scientific Paper” guidelines that were widely used and cited for years as best practices: doi.org/10.1080/1087... [bsky, 2 points, 1 comments]

Related

• Bibliometric analysis of 71 best practice guidelines (WASP) related to scientific writing
• The evolving landscape of scientific publishing practices and implications for public health research
• The Citation of Retracted Papers and Impact on the Integrity of the Scientific Biomedical Literature
• Citation Contamination by Paper Mill Articles in Systematic Reviews of the Life Sciences
• Research done wrong: A comprehensive investigation of retracted publications in COVID-19