Context: The retraction of research papers, for whatever reason, is a growing phenomenon. However, although retracted paper information is publicly available via publishers, it is somewhat distributed and inconsistent. Objective: The aim is to assess: (i) the extent and nature of retracted research in Computer Science (CS) (ii) the post-retraction citation behaviour of retracted works and (iii) the potential impact on systematic reviews and mapping studies. Method: We analyse the Retraction Watch database and take citation information from the Web of Science and Google scholar. Results: We find that of the 33,955 entries in the Retraction watch database (16 May 2022), 2,816 are classified as CS, i.e., approximately 8.3%. For CS, 56% of retracted papers, provide little or no information as to the reasons. This contrasts with 26% for other disciplines. There is also a remarkable disparity between different publishers, a tendency for multiple versions of a retracted paper over and above the Version of Record (VoR), and for new citations long after a paper is officially retracted. Conclusions: Unfortunately retraction seems to be a sufficiently common outcome for a scientific paper that we as a research community need to take it more seriously, e.g., standardising procedures and taxonomies across publishers and the provision of appropriate research tools. Finally, we recommend particular caution when undertaking secondary analyses and meta-analyses which are at risk of becoming contaminated by these problem primary studies.
翻译:目标:(一) 计算机科学(CS)(CS)(二) 收回后引证行为;(三) 收回后引证行为;(三) 对系统审查和绘图研究的潜在影响。方法:我们分析减记观察数据库,从科学和谷歌学者网络收集引用资料。结果:我们发现,在检索观察数据库(2022年5月16日)中的33 955个条目中,2 816个条目被归类为CS,即约8.3%。对于计算机科学(CS)(CS)(二) 收回后引证工作的程度和性质,(二) 收回后引证行为;(三) 对系统审查和绘图研究的潜在影响。方法:我们分析减缩观察数据库,从科学网站和谷歌学者网络获取引用资料。结果:我们发现,检索观察数据库(2022年5月16日) 数据库中33 955个条目被公开提供,但资料被分发得有点不一致。结论:对于CS(CS),即大约8.3%的收回论文,56%的收回论文,很少或完全没有提供任何资料。