Innovation & Research Practice
Paper: Research Abstract
Impact of Retracted Publications in Evidence-Based Dentistry
Monday, May 6
5:35 PM - 5:50 PM
Room: Columbus GH (East Tower, Ballroom/Gold Level)
Nicole Theis-Mahon, AHIP
Liaison to the School of Dentistry & Collections Coordinator
University of Minnesota
Caitlin Bakker, AHIP
Research Services Liaison Librarian
University of Minnesota
Objectives : Publications are retracted for many reasons, but the continued reading and citation of retracted publications may impact patient care and future research. This project analyzes retracted publications in the dentistry, including reason for retraction, citation patterns, and nature of citing items. The objective is to investigate which factors contribute to the continued influence of a retracted publication in evidence-based dentistry.
Methods : Retracted publications in the dental literature were identified through the RetractionWatch Databases’s Dentistry category. Additional information including the study design, the reason for retraction, PMID number, and DOI were added to the dataset. Known item searching was conducted in Scopus and Web of Science to identify articles that have cited these retracted publications. The full-text of citing items were consulted and those published or submitted for publication prior to the publication of the retraction notice were removed, as were the retraction notices. Theoretical frameworks developed by Bar-Ilan and Halevi were applied to categorize the type of retraction and the negative, neutral, and positive nature of the subsequent citations of retracted publications. Statistical analysis was performed to determine which characteristics were significant predictors of continued citation following retraction.
Results : 136 retracted publications were identified, of which 108 had been cited by over 1,400 items. The majority of the 136 papers were retracted due to ethical misconduct (80/136, 59%), followed by scientific distortion (37/136, 27%). Excluding items that were published before retraction, over 700 citing items remained, which cited 85 retracted items. The majority of the cited retractions were either positive or neutral in the cited papers with fewer examples of the negative categorization. Study design of both the original article and citing items were also considered.
Conclusions : Retracted publications continue to have an impact in the dental literature post retraction. Advances need to be made to identify retracted publications throughout the submission, review, and revision of manuscripts to ensure that retracted publications do not have a positive impact in future dental literature.