Cargando…
Dynamics of cross-platform attention to retracted papers
Retracted papers often circulate widely on social media, digital news, and other websites before their official retraction. The spread of potentially inaccurate or misleading results from retracted papers can harm the scientific community and the public. Here, we quantify the amount and type of atte...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
National Academy of Sciences
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9231484/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35700358 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2119086119 |
_version_ | 1784735350293266432 |
---|---|
author | Peng, Hao Romero, Daniel M. Horvát, Emőke-Ágnes |
author_facet | Peng, Hao Romero, Daniel M. Horvát, Emőke-Ágnes |
author_sort | Peng, Hao |
collection | PubMed |
description | Retracted papers often circulate widely on social media, digital news, and other websites before their official retraction. The spread of potentially inaccurate or misleading results from retracted papers can harm the scientific community and the public. Here, we quantify the amount and type of attention 3,851 retracted papers received over time in different online platforms. Comparing with a set of nonretracted control papers from the same journals with similar publication year, number of coauthors, and author impact, we show that retracted papers receive more attention after publication not only on social media but also, on heavily curated platforms, such as news outlets and knowledge repositories, amplifying the negative impact on the public. At the same time, we find that posts on Twitter tend to express more criticism about retracted than about control papers, suggesting that criticism-expressing tweets could contain factual information about problematic papers. Most importantly, around the time they are retracted, papers generate discussions that are primarily about the retraction incident rather than about research findings, showing that by this point, papers have exhausted attention to their results and highlighting the limited effect of retractions. Our findings reveal the extent to which retracted papers are discussed on different online platforms and identify at scale audience criticism toward them. In this context, we show that retraction is not an effective tool to reduce online attention to problematic papers. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9231484 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | National Academy of Sciences |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-92314842022-06-25 Dynamics of cross-platform attention to retracted papers Peng, Hao Romero, Daniel M. Horvát, Emőke-Ágnes Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Social Sciences Retracted papers often circulate widely on social media, digital news, and other websites before their official retraction. The spread of potentially inaccurate or misleading results from retracted papers can harm the scientific community and the public. Here, we quantify the amount and type of attention 3,851 retracted papers received over time in different online platforms. Comparing with a set of nonretracted control papers from the same journals with similar publication year, number of coauthors, and author impact, we show that retracted papers receive more attention after publication not only on social media but also, on heavily curated platforms, such as news outlets and knowledge repositories, amplifying the negative impact on the public. At the same time, we find that posts on Twitter tend to express more criticism about retracted than about control papers, suggesting that criticism-expressing tweets could contain factual information about problematic papers. Most importantly, around the time they are retracted, papers generate discussions that are primarily about the retraction incident rather than about research findings, showing that by this point, papers have exhausted attention to their results and highlighting the limited effect of retractions. Our findings reveal the extent to which retracted papers are discussed on different online platforms and identify at scale audience criticism toward them. In this context, we show that retraction is not an effective tool to reduce online attention to problematic papers. National Academy of Sciences 2022-06-14 2022-06-21 /pmc/articles/PMC9231484/ /pubmed/35700358 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2119086119 Text en Copyright © 2022 the Author(s). Published by PNAS. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This open access article is distributed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Social Sciences Peng, Hao Romero, Daniel M. Horvát, Emőke-Ágnes Dynamics of cross-platform attention to retracted papers |
title | Dynamics of cross-platform attention to retracted papers |
title_full | Dynamics of cross-platform attention to retracted papers |
title_fullStr | Dynamics of cross-platform attention to retracted papers |
title_full_unstemmed | Dynamics of cross-platform attention to retracted papers |
title_short | Dynamics of cross-platform attention to retracted papers |
title_sort | dynamics of cross-platform attention to retracted papers |
topic | Social Sciences |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9231484/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35700358 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2119086119 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT penghao dynamicsofcrossplatformattentiontoretractedpapers AT romerodanielm dynamicsofcrossplatformattentiontoretractedpapers AT horvatemokeagnes dynamicsofcrossplatformattentiontoretractedpapers |