SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
A comparative study on characteristics of retracted publications across different open access levels
16 references·1 citing·38 second hop
A comparative study on characteristics of retracted publications across different open access levels (2024)A comparative study on characteristics of…Plagiarism and data falsification are the most common reasons for retracted publications in obstetrics and gynaecology (2019)Plagiarism and data falsifica…The preregistration revolution (2018)The preregistration revolutionTemporal characteristics of retracted articles (2018)Temporal characteristics of r…Retracted Publications in the Biomedical Literature from Open Access Journals (2018)Retracted Publications in the…The open access advantage considering citation, article usage and social media attention (2015)The open access advantage con…Article processing charges in OA journals: relationship between price and quality (2015)Article processing charges in…‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics (2015)‘Predatory’ open access: a lo…Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? (2013)Why Has the Number of Scienti…Who's Afraid of Peer Review? (2013)Who's Afraid of Peer Review?Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing (2013)Investigating journals: The d…Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications (2012)Misconduct accounts for the m…Governing knowledge in the scientific community: Exploring the role of retractions in biomedicine (2012)Governing knowledge in the sc…Science publishing: The trouble with retractions (2011)Science publishing: The troub…Falsified papers in high-impact journals were slow to retract and indistinguishable from nonfraudulent papers (2008)Falsified papers in high-impa…Do open access articles have greater citation impact?A critical review of the literature (2007)Do open access articles have …Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002)Budapest Open Access Initiati…Global perspectives on retracted papers in artificial intelligence and machine learning: a bibliometric study (2025)Global perspectives on retrac…Free online availability substantially increases a paper's impact (2001)Do Open-Access Articles Have a Greater Research Impact? (2004)Do Altmetrics Work? Twitter and Ten Other Social Web Services (2013)How open science helps researchers succeed (2016)The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review (2016)Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021)How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data (2009)Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling (2012)The natural selection of bad science (2016)What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)Transparency, Reproducibility, and the Credibility of Economics Research (2018)Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation (2005)Citation Advantage of Open Access Articles (2006)Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases (2010)Factors affecting number of citations: a comprehensive review of the literature (2016)The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles (2018)Scientists behaving badly (2005)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition (2016)Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories (2019)The past, present and future of Registered Reports (2021)The Development of Open Access Journal Publishing from 1993 to 2009 (2011)Predatory publishers are corrupting open access (2012)The foreign gaze: authorship in academic global health (2019)Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (1975)Thinking, Fast and Slow (2011)Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015 (2018)Many Labs 2: Investigating Variation in Replicability Across Samples and Settings (2018)Replicability, Robustness, and Reproducibility in Psychological Science (2021)Social Theory and Social Structure. (1958)Toward a new economics of science (1994)The Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge (2007)THE MEANING OF FAILED REPLICATIONS: A REVIEW AND PROPOSAL (2015)Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank (2013)Facts Are More Important Than Novelty (2014)Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison (2017)Predatory journals: Who publishes in them and why? (2018)How to Make More Published Research True (2014)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2018The preregistration revolution2,252 cited
  • 2012Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications1,282 cited
  • 2013Who's Afraid of Peer Review?1,147 cited
  • 2015‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics885 cited
  • 2013Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?443 cited
  • 2007Do open access articles have greater citation impact?A critical review of the literature394 cited
  • 2013Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing371 cited
  • 2011Science publishing: The trouble with retractions328 cited
  • 2015The open access advantage considering citation, article usage and social media attention286 cited
  • 2012Governing knowledge in the scientific community: Exploring the role of retractions in biomedicine151 cited
  • 2015Article processing charges in OA journals: relationship between price and quality119 cited
  • 2018Temporal characteristics of retracted articles107 cited
  • 2008Falsified papers in high-impact journals were slow to retract and indistinguishable from nonfraudulent papers100 cited
  • 2019Plagiarism and data falsification are the most common reasons for retracted publications in obstetrics and gynaecology99 cited

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

2018
Retracted Publications in the Biomedical Literature from Open Access Journals
92 cited
  • 2002Budapest Open Access Initiative75 cited
  • Cited by

    • 2025Global perspectives on retracted papers in artificial intelligence and machine learning: a bibliometric study5 cited