Media and social media attention to retracted articles according to Altmetric
The number of retracted articles has grown fast. However, the extent to which researchers and the public are made adequately aware of these retractions and how the media and social media respond to them remains unknown. Here, we aimed to evaluate the media and social media attention received by retr...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2021-05, Vol.16 (5), p.e0248625-e0248625 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e0248625 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 5 |
| container_start_page | e0248625 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 16 |
| creator | Serghiou, Stylianos Marton, Rebecca M Ioannidis, John P A |
| description | The number of retracted articles has grown fast. However, the extent to which researchers and the public are made adequately aware of these retractions and how the media and social media respond to them remains unknown. Here, we aimed to evaluate the media and social media attention received by retracted articles and assess also the attention they receive post-retraction versus pre-retraction. We downloaded all records of retracted literature maintained by the Retraction Watch Database and originally published between January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2015. For all 3,008 retracted articles with a separate DOI for the original and its retraction, we downloaded the respective Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) (from Altmetric) and citation count (from Crossref), for the original article and its retraction notice on June 6, 2018. We also compared the AAS of a random sample of 572 retracted full journal articles available on PubMed to that of unretracted full articles matched from the same issue and journal. 1,687 (56.1%) of retracted research articles received some amount of Altmetric attention, and 165 (5.5%) were even considered popular (AAS>20). 31 (1.0%) of 2,953 with a record on Crossref received >100 citations by June 6, 2018. Popular articles received substantially more attention than their retraction, even after adjusting for attention received post-retraction (Median difference, 29; 95% CI, 17-61). Unreliable results were the most frequent reason for retraction of popular articles (32; 19%), while fake peer review was the most common reason (421; 15%) for the retraction of other articles. In comparison to matched articles, retracted articles tended to receive more Altmetric attention (23/31 matched groups; P-value, 0.01), even after adjusting for attention received post-retraction. Our findings reveal that retracted articles may receive high attention from media and social media and that for popular articles, pre-retraction attention far outweighs post-retraction attention. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0248625 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2526105193</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A661566715</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_b9f3620e324243c5921f05eaf0f938bc</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A661566715</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-c0f440b243a44b702ff4d4794109c344d5f9893d32cdac7cedf6d95848d0c5d63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNklmL2zAUhU1p6SztPyitoTC0D0m123ophKFLYIaBbq9C0ZIoKFZGkkv77ys3niEu81AMtrj67rHu0amqFxDMIW7gu23oYyf9fB86MweItAzRR9Up5BjNGAL48dH6pDpLaQsAxS1jT6sTjHnDy-u0ur422sladrpOQTnp692hkLPpsgtdnUMdTY5SZaNrGbNT3qRaKhWidt162F_4vCuIU8-qJ1b6ZJ6P3_Pq-8cP3y4_z65uPi0vF1czxTjKMwUsIWCFCJaErBqArCWaNJxAwBUmRFPLW441RkpL1SijLdOctqTVQFHN8Hn16qC79yGJ0YkkEEUMAlrGLsTyQOggt2If3U7G3yJIJ_4WQlyLcRax4hYXkwxGpJxIUY6gBdRICyzH7UoVrffj3_pVcUcVY6L0E9HpTuc2Yh1-ihZC2rSwCLwZBWK47U3KYueSMt7LzoT-cG4MECKkoK__QR-ebqTWsgzgOhuGCxpExYIxSBlrIC3U_AGqPNrsnCqxsa7UJw1vJw2FyeZXXss-JbH8-uX_2ZsfU_biiN0Y6fMmBd8P-UpTkBxAFUNK0dh7kyEQQ-rv3BBD6sWY-tL28viC7pvuYo7_AF5y-6U</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2526105193</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Media and social media attention to retracted articles according to Altmetric</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><creator>Serghiou, Stylianos ; Marton, Rebecca M ; Ioannidis, John P A</creator><contributor>Dorta-González, Pablo</contributor><creatorcontrib>Serghiou, Stylianos ; Marton, Rebecca M ; Ioannidis, John P A ; Dorta-González, Pablo</creatorcontrib><description>The number of retracted articles has grown fast. However, the extent to which researchers and the public are made adequately aware of these retractions and how the media and social media respond to them remains unknown. Here, we aimed to evaluate the media and social media attention received by retracted articles and assess also the attention they receive post-retraction versus pre-retraction. We downloaded all records of retracted literature maintained by the Retraction Watch Database and originally published between January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2015. For all 3,008 retracted articles with a separate DOI for the original and its retraction, we downloaded the respective Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) (from Altmetric) and citation count (from Crossref), for the original article and its retraction notice on June 6, 2018. We also compared the AAS of a random sample of 572 retracted full journal articles available on PubMed to that of unretracted full articles matched from the same issue and journal. 1,687 (56.1%) of retracted research articles received some amount of Altmetric attention, and 165 (5.5%) were even considered popular (AAS>20). 31 (1.0%) of 2,953 with a record on Crossref received >100 citations by June 6, 2018. Popular articles received substantially more attention than their retraction, even after adjusting for attention received post-retraction (Median difference, 29; 95% CI, 17-61). Unreliable results were the most frequent reason for retraction of popular articles (32; 19%), while fake peer review was the most common reason (421; 15%) for the retraction of other articles. In comparison to matched articles, retracted articles tended to receive more Altmetric attention (23/31 matched groups; P-value, 0.01), even after adjusting for attention received post-retraction. Our findings reveal that retracted articles may receive high attention from media and social media and that for popular articles, pre-retraction attention far outweighs post-retraction attention.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248625</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33979339</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Bibliometrics ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Cohort analysis ; Computer and Information Sciences ; Corrections ; Digital media ; Digital Object Identifier ; Editing ; Epidemiology ; False information ; Humans ; Informetrics ; Innovations ; Median (statistics) ; Medicine ; Peer Review ; Popularity ; Publications - statistics & numerical data ; Reduction ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Research facilities ; Reviews ; Social aspects ; Social Media ; Social networks ; Social Sciences ; Statistical analysis</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2021-05, Vol.16 (5), p.e0248625-e0248625</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2021 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2021 Serghiou et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2021 Serghiou et al 2021 Serghiou et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-c0f440b243a44b702ff4d4794109c344d5f9893d32cdac7cedf6d95848d0c5d63</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-c0f440b243a44b702ff4d4794109c344d5f9893d32cdac7cedf6d95848d0c5d63</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-2477-6060 ; 0000-0003-3118-6859</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8115781/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8115781/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,2096,2915,23845,27901,27902,53766,53768,79343,79344</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33979339$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Dorta-González, Pablo</contributor><creatorcontrib>Serghiou, Stylianos</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marton, Rebecca M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ioannidis, John P A</creatorcontrib><title>Media and social media attention to retracted articles according to Altmetric</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>The number of retracted articles has grown fast. However, the extent to which researchers and the public are made adequately aware of these retractions and how the media and social media respond to them remains unknown. Here, we aimed to evaluate the media and social media attention received by retracted articles and assess also the attention they receive post-retraction versus pre-retraction. We downloaded all records of retracted literature maintained by the Retraction Watch Database and originally published between January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2015. For all 3,008 retracted articles with a separate DOI for the original and its retraction, we downloaded the respective Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) (from Altmetric) and citation count (from Crossref), for the original article and its retraction notice on June 6, 2018. We also compared the AAS of a random sample of 572 retracted full journal articles available on PubMed to that of unretracted full articles matched from the same issue and journal. 1,687 (56.1%) of retracted research articles received some amount of Altmetric attention, and 165 (5.5%) were even considered popular (AAS>20). 31 (1.0%) of 2,953 with a record on Crossref received >100 citations by June 6, 2018. Popular articles received substantially more attention than their retraction, even after adjusting for attention received post-retraction (Median difference, 29; 95% CI, 17-61). Unreliable results were the most frequent reason for retraction of popular articles (32; 19%), while fake peer review was the most common reason (421; 15%) for the retraction of other articles. In comparison to matched articles, retracted articles tended to receive more Altmetric attention (23/31 matched groups; P-value, 0.01), even after adjusting for attention received post-retraction. Our findings reveal that retracted articles may receive high attention from media and social media and that for popular articles, pre-retraction attention far outweighs post-retraction attention.</description><subject>Bibliometrics</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Cohort analysis</subject><subject>Computer and Information Sciences</subject><subject>Corrections</subject><subject>Digital media</subject><subject>Digital Object Identifier</subject><subject>Editing</subject><subject>Epidemiology</subject><subject>False information</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Informetrics</subject><subject>Innovations</subject><subject>Median (statistics)</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Peer Review</subject><subject>Popularity</subject><subject>Publications - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Reduction</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Research facilities</subject><subject>Reviews</subject><subject>Social aspects</subject><subject>Social Media</subject><subject>Social networks</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNklmL2zAUhU1p6SztPyitoTC0D0m123ophKFLYIaBbq9C0ZIoKFZGkkv77ys3niEu81AMtrj67rHu0amqFxDMIW7gu23oYyf9fB86MweItAzRR9Up5BjNGAL48dH6pDpLaQsAxS1jT6sTjHnDy-u0ur422sladrpOQTnp692hkLPpsgtdnUMdTY5SZaNrGbNT3qRaKhWidt162F_4vCuIU8-qJ1b6ZJ6P3_Pq-8cP3y4_z65uPi0vF1czxTjKMwUsIWCFCJaErBqArCWaNJxAwBUmRFPLW441RkpL1SijLdOctqTVQFHN8Hn16qC79yGJ0YkkEEUMAlrGLsTyQOggt2If3U7G3yJIJ_4WQlyLcRax4hYXkwxGpJxIUY6gBdRICyzH7UoVrffj3_pVcUcVY6L0E9HpTuc2Yh1-ihZC2rSwCLwZBWK47U3KYueSMt7LzoT-cG4MECKkoK__QR-ebqTWsgzgOhuGCxpExYIxSBlrIC3U_AGqPNrsnCqxsa7UJw1vJw2FyeZXXss-JbH8-uX_2ZsfU_biiN0Y6fMmBd8P-UpTkBxAFUNK0dh7kyEQQ-rv3BBD6sWY-tL28viC7pvuYo7_AF5y-6U</recordid><startdate>20210512</startdate><enddate>20210512</enddate><creator>Serghiou, Stylianos</creator><creator>Marton, Rebecca M</creator><creator>Ioannidis, John P A</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2477-6060</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3118-6859</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210512</creationdate><title>Media and social media attention to retracted articles according to Altmetric</title><author>Serghiou, Stylianos ; Marton, Rebecca M ; Ioannidis, John P A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-c0f440b243a44b702ff4d4794109c344d5f9893d32cdac7cedf6d95848d0c5d63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Bibliometrics</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Cohort analysis</topic><topic>Computer and Information Sciences</topic><topic>Corrections</topic><topic>Digital media</topic><topic>Digital Object Identifier</topic><topic>Editing</topic><topic>Epidemiology</topic><topic>False information</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Informetrics</topic><topic>Innovations</topic><topic>Median (statistics)</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Peer Review</topic><topic>Popularity</topic><topic>Publications - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Reduction</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Research facilities</topic><topic>Reviews</topic><topic>Social aspects</topic><topic>Social Media</topic><topic>Social networks</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Serghiou, Stylianos</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marton, Rebecca M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ioannidis, John P A</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Serghiou, Stylianos</au><au>Marton, Rebecca M</au><au>Ioannidis, John P A</au><au>Dorta-González, Pablo</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Media and social media attention to retracted articles according to Altmetric</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2021-05-12</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>16</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>e0248625</spage><epage>e0248625</epage><pages>e0248625-e0248625</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>The number of retracted articles has grown fast. However, the extent to which researchers and the public are made adequately aware of these retractions and how the media and social media respond to them remains unknown. Here, we aimed to evaluate the media and social media attention received by retracted articles and assess also the attention they receive post-retraction versus pre-retraction. We downloaded all records of retracted literature maintained by the Retraction Watch Database and originally published between January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2015. For all 3,008 retracted articles with a separate DOI for the original and its retraction, we downloaded the respective Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) (from Altmetric) and citation count (from Crossref), for the original article and its retraction notice on June 6, 2018. We also compared the AAS of a random sample of 572 retracted full journal articles available on PubMed to that of unretracted full articles matched from the same issue and journal. 1,687 (56.1%) of retracted research articles received some amount of Altmetric attention, and 165 (5.5%) were even considered popular (AAS>20). 31 (1.0%) of 2,953 with a record on Crossref received >100 citations by June 6, 2018. Popular articles received substantially more attention than their retraction, even after adjusting for attention received post-retraction (Median difference, 29; 95% CI, 17-61). Unreliable results were the most frequent reason for retraction of popular articles (32; 19%), while fake peer review was the most common reason (421; 15%) for the retraction of other articles. In comparison to matched articles, retracted articles tended to receive more Altmetric attention (23/31 matched groups; P-value, 0.01), even after adjusting for attention received post-retraction. Our findings reveal that retracted articles may receive high attention from media and social media and that for popular articles, pre-retraction attention far outweighs post-retraction attention.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>33979339</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0248625</doi><tpages>e0248625</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2477-6060</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3118-6859</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2021-05, Vol.16 (5), p.e0248625-e0248625 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2526105193 |
| source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry; Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| subjects | Bibliometrics Biology and Life Sciences Cohort analysis Computer and Information Sciences Corrections Digital media Digital Object Identifier Editing Epidemiology False information Humans Informetrics Innovations Median (statistics) Medicine Peer Review Popularity Publications - statistics & numerical data Reduction Research and Analysis Methods Research facilities Reviews Social aspects Social Media Social networks Social Sciences Statistical analysis |
| title | Media and social media attention to retracted articles according to Altmetric |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T13%3A11%3A05IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Media%20and%20social%20media%20attention%20to%20retracted%20articles%20according%20to%20Altmetric&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Serghiou,%20Stylianos&rft.date=2021-05-12&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=e0248625&rft.epage=e0248625&rft.pages=e0248625-e0248625&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0248625&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA661566715%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2526105193&rft_id=info:pmid/33979339&rft_galeid=A661566715&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_b9f3620e324243c5921f05eaf0f938bc&rfr_iscdi=true |