KCSE
Search
- Page Path
- HOME > Search
Original Articles
- How many retracted articles indexed in KoreaMed were cited 1 year after retraction notification
- Soo Young Kim, Hyun Jung Yi, Hye-Min Cho, Sun Huh
- Sci Ed. 2019;6(2):122-127. Published online August 19, 2019
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.172
- 8,683 View
- 133 Download
- 9 Web of Science
- 8 Crossref
-
Abstract
PDF - Purpose
It aimed to investigate how many retracted articles indexed in KoreaMed were cited in both the Scopus and the Korea Medical Citation Index (KoMCI) databases and to investigate whether the frequency of post-retraction citations was different according to the presence of a retraction mark.
Methods
Retracted articles from the KoreaMed database were collected on January 28, 2016. Scopus and KoMCI were searched for post-retraction citations, which were defined as citations 1 year after the retraction, excluding retraction-related citations.
Results
The 114 retracted articles were found in KoreaMed. The proportion of retracted articles in KoreaMed, the Korean medical journal database, through January 2016 was 0.04% (114/256,000). On the journal homepage, a retraction mark was present for 49 of the 114 retracted articles. Of the 114 retracted articles, 45 were cited in Scopus 176 times. Of the 176 citations, 109 (of 36 retracted articles) were post-retraction citations. The number of citations in KoMCI, except for citations of retraction notices, was 33 (of 14 retracted articles). Of those citations, the number of post-retraction citations in KoMCI was 14 (of 8 retracted articles). The presence of a retraction mark did not influence post-retraction citations (P>0.05). Post-retraction citations were frequent in the range of 1 to 3 years.
Conclusion
Post-retraction citations that were found in both Scopus and the KoMCI occurred frequently for retracted articles in KoreaMed. Adoption of Crossmark is recommended as one choice to prevent post-retraction citations. -
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
- Expert-recommended biomedical journal articles: Their retractions or corrections, and post-retraction citing
Peiling Wang, Jing Su
Journal of Information Science.2024; 50(1): 17. CrossRef - The indexation of retracted literature in seven principal scholarly databases: a coverage comparison of dimensions, OpenAlex, PubMed, Scilit, Scopus, The Lens and Web of Science
José Luis Ortega, Lorena Delgado-Quirós
Scientometrics.2024; 129(7): 3769. CrossRef - Exploring perception of retraction based on mentioned status in post-retraction citations
Xiaojuan Liu, Chenlin Wang, Dar-Zen Chen, Mu-Hsuan Huang
Journal of Informetrics.2022; 16(3): 101304. CrossRef - Inconsistent and incomplete retraction of published research: A cross-sectional study on Covid-19 retractions and recommendations to mitigate risks for research, policy and practice
Geoff Frampton, Lois Woods, David Alexander Scott, Eleanor Ochodo
PLOS ONE.2021; 16(10): e0258935. CrossRef - Continued use of retracted papers: Temporal trends in citations and (lack of) awareness of retractions shown in citation contexts in biomedicine
Tzu-Kun Hsiao, Jodi Schneider
Quantitative Science Studies.2021; 2(4): 1144. CrossRef - Does retraction after misconduct have an impact on citations? A pre–post study
Cristina Candal-Pedreira, Alberto Ruano-Ravina, Esteve Fernández, Jorge Ramos, Isabel Campos-Varela, Mónica Pérez-Ríos
BMJ Global Health.2020; 5(11): e003719. CrossRef - Comprehensive Analysis of Retracted Publications in Dentistry: A 23-Year Review
Shannon Samuel, Joe Mathew Cherian, Abi M. Thomas, Stefano Corbella
International Journal of Dentistry.2020; 2020: 1. CrossRef - Continued post-retraction citation of a fraudulent clinical trial report, 11 years after it was retracted for falsifying data
Jodi Schneider, Di Ye, Alison M. Hill, Ashley S. Whitehorn
Scientometrics.2020; 125(3): 2877. CrossRef
- Expert-recommended biomedical journal articles: Their retractions or corrections, and post-retraction citing
- Comparison of the patterns of duplicate articles between KoreaMed and PubMed journals published from 2004 to 2009 according to the categories of duplicate publications
- Soo Young Kim, Chong Woo Bae, Hye-Min Cho, Sun Huh
- Sci Ed. 2018;5(1):44-48. Published online February 19, 2018
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.117
- 10,088 View
- 188 Download
- 2 Web of Science
- 3 Crossref
-
Abstract
PDF
- This study compared the patterns of duplicate articles between KoreaMed and PubMed journals based on a division of duplicate publications into the 4 categories of ‘copy,’ ‘salami’ (fragmentation), ‘imalas’ (disaggregation), and ‘others,’ as well as in terms of the 11 subcategories suggested by Bae et al., which further elaborate on those 4 main categories. We hypothesized that these 2 groups of articles would show different patterns of duplication. Duplicate publications were identified in a random sample of 5% of the articles from the KoreaMed database published between 2004 and 2009, while all articles with the publication type of ‘duplicate publication’ were selected from PubMed over the same period. The selected articles were classified based on the 4 categories and 11 subcategories of duplicate publications, and the data from the 2 groups were compared. A total of 108 articles were selected from KoreaMed and 45 articles were obtained from PubMed. The category of copy was the most common in both databases. The next most frequent pattern was imalas (disaggregation). Pattern of duplicate publication between 2 databases showed no correlation (P = 0.8754). Although the 108 articles from KoreaMed were allocated to all 11 Bae et al.’s subcategories, those from PubMed were allocated to only 8. The above results showed that the articles in the 2 databases had different patterns of duplication, as defined in terms of the 11 subcategories. The use of these 11 subcategories will help journal editors to develop an appropriate framework for considering a variety of duplication types.
-
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by- Recent Issues in Medical Journal Publishing and Editing Policies: Adoption of Artificial Intelligence, Preprints, Open Peer Review, Model Text Recycling Policies, Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing 4th Version, and Country Names in Titles
Sun Huh
Neurointervention.2023; 18(1): 2. CrossRef - Analysis of duplicated publications in Russian journals
Yury V. Chekhovich, Andrey V. Khazov
Journal of Informetrics.2022; 16(1): 101246. CrossRef - How many retracted articles indexed in KoreaMed were cited 1 year after retraction notification
Soo Young Kim, Hyun Jung Yi, Hye-Min Cho, Sun Huh
Science Editing.2019; 6(2): 122. CrossRef
- Recent Issues in Medical Journal Publishing and Editing Policies: Adoption of Artificial Intelligence, Preprints, Open Peer Review, Model Text Recycling Policies, Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing 4th Version, and Country Names in Titles
First
Prev
