SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Retracted systematic reviews continued to be frequently cited: a citation analysis
16 references·0 citing·48 second hop
Retracted systematic reviews continued to be frequently cited: a citation analysis (2022)Retracted systematic reviews continued to…Trends and Characteristics of Retracted Articles in the Biomedical Literature, 1971 to 2020 (2021)Trends and Characteristics of…Does retraction after misconduct have an impact on citations? A pre–post study (2020)Does retraction after miscond…Reasons for article retraction in anesthesiology: a comprehensive analysis (2019)Reasons for article retractio…Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements (2019)Meeting the review family: ex…Assessment of Citations of the Retracted Article by Wakefield et al With Fraudulent Claims of an Association Between Vaccination and Autism (2019)Assessment of Citations of th…Rethinking retractions (2018)Rethinking retractionsHow to Do a Systematic Review: A Best Practice Guide for Conducting and Reporting Narrative Reviews, Meta-Analyses, and Meta-Syntheses (2018)How to Do a Systematic Review…Post retraction citations in context: a case study (2017)Post retraction citations in …The (lack of) Impact of Retraction on Citation Networks (2014)The (lack of) Impact of Retra…Patterns of connections and movements in dual‐map overlays: A new method of publication portfolio analysis (2013)Patterns of connections and m…A visual analytic study of retracted articles in scientific literature (2012)A visual analytic study of re…A Comprehensive Survey of Retracted Articles from the Scholarly Literature (2012)A Comprehensive Survey of Ret…The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration (2009)The PRISMA statement for repo…Retractions: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (2009)Retractions: Guidance from th…Retractions in the research literature: misconduct or mistakes? (2006)Retractions in the research l…Stochastic modeling of citation slips (2005)Stochastic modeling of citati…Models of Man. (1959)The Matthew Effect in Science (1968)The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered. (1968)A mathematical theory of citing (2007)Counting publications and citations: Is more always better? (2013)Unpacking the Matthew effect in citations (2014)Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing? (2010)Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988–2008 (2011)Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications (2012)Perpetuation of Retracted Publications Using the Example of the Scott S. Reuben Case: Incidences, Reasons and Possible Improvements (2015)Continued post-retraction citation of a fraudulent clinical trial report, 11 years after it was retracted for falsifying data (2020)A global map of science based on the ISI subject categories (2008)How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data (2009)Retracted Science and the Retraction Index (2011)Why Growing Retractions Are (Mostly) a Good Sign (2013)Misconduct Policies, Academic Culture and Career Stage, Not Gender or Pressures to Publish, Affect Scientific Integrity (2015)What’s in a p? Reassessing best practices for conducting and reporting hypothesis-testing research (2017)The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data (1977)Human Error (1990)Requisitos uniformes para manuscritos submetidos a periódicos biomédicos: escrevendo e editando para publicações biomédicas (2006)The visibility of scientific misconduct: A review of the literature on retracted journal articles (2016)Misconduct as the main cause for retraction. A descriptive study of retracted publications and their authors (2018)The limitations of retraction notices and the heroic acts of authors who correct the scholarly record: An analysis of retractions of papers published from 1975 to 2019 (2019)Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses (2003)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (2009)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output (2005)CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature (2005)The structure and dynamics of cocitation clusters: A multiple‐perspective cocitation analysis (2010)Urban resilience and urban sustainability: What we know and what do not know? (2017)Emerging trends and new developments in information science: a document co-citation analysis (2009–2016) (2018)Artificial intelligence in renewable energy: A comprehensive bibliometric analysis (2022)Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? (2013)Temporal characteristics of retracted articles (2018)Continued use of retracted papers: Temporal trends in citations and (lack of) awareness of retractions shown in citation contexts in biomedicine (2021)The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. (1995)Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology A Proposal for Reporting (2000)Digital Mental Health Interventions for Depression, Anxiety, and Enhancement of Psychological Well-Being Among College Students: Systematic Review (2019)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses in ecology and evolutionary biology: a PRISMA extension (2021)Revealing the theoretical basis of gamification: A systematic review and analysis of theory in research on gamification, serious games and game-based learning (2021)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. (2009)Conducting high quality scoping reviews-challenges and solutions (2020)Mapping reviews, scoping reviews, and evidence and gap maps (EGMs): the same but different— the “Big Picture” review family (2023)Transparency and accountability in AI systems: safeguarding wellbeing in the age of algorithmic decision-making (2024)Should research misconduct be criminalized? (2020)Retractions, Fake Peer Reviews, and Paper Mills (2021)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2009The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration17,627 cited
  • 2018How to Do a Systematic Review: A Best Practice Guide for Conducting and Reporting Narrative Reviews, Meta-Analyses, and Meta-Syntheses2,546 cited
  • 2013Patterns of connections and movements in dual‐map overlays: A new method of publication portfolio analysis638 cited
  • 2019Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements570 cited
  • 2012A Comprehensive Survey of Retracted Articles from the Scholarly Literature355 cited
  • 2017Post retraction citations in context: a case study191 cited
  • 2006Retractions in the research literature: misconduct or mistakes?161 cited
  • 2018Rethinking retractions149 cited
  • 2005Stochastic modeling of citation slips134 cited
  • 2014The (lack of) Impact of Retraction on Citation Networks89 cited
  • 2019Reasons for article retraction in anesthesiology: a comprehensive analysis86 cited
  • 2012A visual analytic study of retracted articles in scientific literature75 cited
  • 2019Assessment of Citations of the Retracted Article by Wakefield et al With Fraudulent Claims of an Association Between Vaccination and Autism69 cited
  • 2021Trends and Characteristics of Retracted Articles in the Biomedical Literature, 1971 to 2020

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work

68 cited
  • 2020Does retraction after misconduct have an impact on citations? A pre–post study67 cited
  • 2009Retractions: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)67 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.