Other than detecting impact in advance, alternative metrics could act as early warning signs of retractions: tentative f
- PDF / 880,961 Bytes
- 21 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 81 Downloads / 143 Views
Other than detecting impact in advance, alternative metrics could act as early warning signs of retractions: tentative findings of a study into the papers retracted by PLoS ONE Sergio Copiello1 Received: 23 April 2020 © Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2020
Abstract The so-called altmetrics—short for alternative metrics—have gained their place in the scholarly publishing landscape, especially providing article-level complementary measures. But what do they point to? A hypothesis has found its way into the recent literature: they could be an early sign of impact, conveying in advance the information carried later by citations. Here the focus is on another possible relationship, namely, the one that may exist between alternative metrics and retractions. The research question is as follows: in comparison to non-retracted, contemporary publications, are the retracted articles likely to be more (or less) viewed and commented (but also «tweeted» and «blogged») before the retraction takes place? The above relationship is tested on a set of n = 209 papers retracted by PLoS ONE and a control group including 2n = 418 contemporary, non-retracted articles featured in the same journal. Significant and positive differences in means are found concerning the mentions in peer review sites and the number of views and downloads. On the whole, by considering five alternative metrics, about one-fourth of the retractions are predicted correctly. Keywords Altmetrics · Alternative metrics · Research impact · Retractions
Introduction The case of some eye‑catching but retracted articles To explain the rationale behind this study, let us begin with a few examples. The paper “Standardised Mindfulness-Based Interventions in Healthcare: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of RCTs” has been published in PLoS ONE in April 2013 (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0124344) and retracted four years later (https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215608). In the meanwhile, it has gained more than 47 thousand online views, it has earned 244 and 501 citations according to Scopus and Google
* Sergio Copiello [email protected] 1
Department of Architecture, IUAV University of Venice, Dorsoduro 2206, 30123 Venice, Italy
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Scientometrics
Scholar, respectively, it has been tweeted 51 times and picked up by 16 news outlets and blogs. Views, citations, tweets, and mentions are 13 to 14 times higher in comparison to a contemporary article in the same journal. Let us consider now a more recent document— “Is insulin resistance the cause of fibromyalgia? A preliminary report”—published in May 2019 (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216079) and retracted in December the same year (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226174). During that half a year, it has attracted nearly 25 thousand online views, and it has also stimulated 348 tweets and 28 news articles and blog posts. In comparison to a simultaneous publication in the same journal, it has received 27 times more views and up to 87 times
Data Loading...
