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 to a set of non-retracted control papers from the same journals, with similar publication year, number of co-authors 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 towards them. In this context, we show that retraction is not an effective tool to reduce online attention to problematic papers.
翻译:在官方撤回之前,在社交媒体、数字新闻和其他网站上经常广泛散发被撤回的论文。被撤回的论文可能具有不准确或误导性,其传播可能会损害科学界和公众。在这里,我们量化在不同在线平台中长期收到的关注数量和类型3,851份被撤回的论文。将批评式的推文与来自同一期刊的一组非撤回的控制文件相比,在类似的出版年、共同作者数量和作者影响方面,我们显示被撤回的论文不仅在社交媒体上发表,而且在大量整理的平台上,例如新闻发布和知识库,扩大对公众的负面影响,因此受到更多的关注。同时,我们发现推特上的文章往往对被撤回的批评多于对控制文件的批评,表明批评式推文可能包含有问题的文件的事实信息。最重要的是,在翻版前后,论文引发的讨论主要是关于收回事件而不是研究结果的讨论,表明到这一点时,文件对结果的注意已经耗尽,并强调了收回文件的有限影响。我们的调查结果表明,在回溯的论文在网上平台上讨论的程度是没有问题的。