Self-correction of science: a comparative study of negative citations and post-publication peer review

2020/06/03 by Frédérique Bordignon, Frederique Bordignon · 1 voice · 4 citations
Medicine · Social Sciences · #Academic integrity and plagiarism #Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

paper · doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03536-z

crossref issued 2020/06/03 · crossref published 2020/06/03 · crossref published-online 2020/06/03 · openalex publication_date 2020/06/03 · crossref created 2020/06/03 · crossref published-print 2020/08/01 · crossref deposited 2024/08/06 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · crossref indexed 2026/03/31 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/01

Citations

• Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

Cited by

• Continued use of retracted papers: Temporal trends in citations and (lack of) awareness of retractions shown in citation contexts in biomedicine
• The Citation of Retracted Papers and Impact on the Integrity of the Scientific Biomedical Literature
• The Journal Attention Cycle: Indicators as Assets in the Chinese Scientific Publishing Economy
• Research quality evaluation by AI in the era of Large Language Models: Advantages, disadvantages, and systemic effects

Discussions

• Thanks for reading our study! I see your point about (in)direct correction. In this study we indeed did not look at the connection between retractions and PubPeer comments, but this study did: doi.org [bsky, 1 points, 3 comments]