Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

The Persistence of Error (2011 CrossRef Annual Meeting)

3,061 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Spiritual
  • Video recording of this presentation is now available on River Valley TV:
    http://river-valley.tv/the-persistence-of-error-a-study-of-retracted-articles-on-the-internet/
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

The Persistence of Error (2011 CrossRef Annual Meeting)

  1. 1. The Persistence of Error:A Study of Retracted Articles on theInternet and in Personal Libraries2011 CrossRef Annual Member MeetingNovember 15, 20110Phil Davis, Ph.D.pmd8@cornell.edu
  2. 2. An Elegant Solution to a Poorly Understood Problem2 November 21, 2011
  3. 3. What We Know • Number of retractions small but increasing (Wager & Williams, 2011; Steen, 2011) • Retracted articles continue to be cited as valid studies (Budd et al., 1998, 2011; Redman et al., 2008) • Journal publishers are inconsistent with alerting readers: 41% articles watermarked, 32% contain no notification anywhere (Steen, 2011) • Most publishers allow some form of self-archiving (SHERPA/Romeo; Morris, 2009) • Authors often ignore publisher policy (Davis & Connolly, 2007) • Journal articles are likely to be found on non-publisher websites (Wren, 2005)3 November 21, 2011
  4. 4. What We Assume • Reaching readers is a communication problem that is not being solved by publishers and indexers alone. • There is more than one access conduit to the scholarly literature • Proliferation of article versions • Scholars hoard articles in personal libraries • Article status is static unless stated otherwise • As retraction numbers are small, little incentive to search for updates (high-cost, low return)4 November 21, 2011
  5. 5. What We Don’t Know • Extent of proliferation of retracted papers on the public internet (out of the control of the publisher) • Where they exist and which version(s)? • What exists in readers personal libraries?5 November 21, 2011
  6. 6. What We Did 1. Searched for copies of retracted papers on the public Internet. Excluded published version on publisher’s website 2. Created an API that searched the Mendeley database for retracted articles6 November 21, 2011
  7. 7. PMC (no notice on page view or pdf)7 November 21, 2011
  8. 8. PMC (notice but not on pdf)8 November 21, 2011
  9. 9. 9 November 21, 2011
  10. 10. Advanced publication10 November 21, 2011
  11. 11. Final manuscript on publisher’s site11 November 21, 2011
  12. 12. Author manuscript in library repository12 November 21, 2011
  13. 13. Pub version in repository13 November 21, 2011
  14. 14. Reviewer manuscript in repository14 November 21, 2011
  15. 15. Author website15 November 21, 2011
  16. 16. Classes16 November 21, 2011
  17. 17. Hospital Labs17 November 21, 2011
  18. 18. Journal clubs18 November 21, 2011
  19. 19. Medical schools19 November 21, 2011
  20. 20. University Research Institutes20 November 21, 2011
  21. 21. Advocacy21 November 21, 2011
  22. 22. Commercial websites22 November 21, 2011
  23. 23. Author, medical business23 November 21, 2011
  24. 24. Aggregation sites24 November 21, 2011
  25. 25. Entire issue25 November 21, 2011
  26. 26. Clearinghouses26 November 21, 2011
  27. 27. 27 Retracted articles 0 100 120 140 160 180 20 40 60 80 1973 1975 1976November 21, 2011 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 No public copies 1986 Found public copies 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Year 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Public Copies on the Web 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
  28. 28. Summary of Web Study • 1,779 retracted articles from PubMed (1973-2010) • 308(12%) publicly-accessible copies (excluding published version on journal website) • 29 could be found in more than one location (max 5) • 90% of copies were published version; 9% final manuscripts; 1% other • 41% in PMC; 28% on educational sites; 7% commercial • 24% copies with retraction notices (5% excluding PMC page view)28 November 21, 2011
  29. 29. A window into what is on computers29 November 21, 2011
  30. 30. Mendeley API Our API: http://www.fireisborn.org/retract/30 November 21, 2011
  31. 31. Results from Mendeley • 75% (1,340 of 1,779 records) could be found in Mendeley (mean readers = 3.4, max = 133) • Caveat: We are not certain if they have the PDF • Concentration of “readers” in top journals • High readership articles more than 3x likely to be found on public (non-repository) websites (OR 3.28, 2.33-4.61, p<.0001)31 November 21, 2011
  32. 32. Implications • The problem of persistence cannot be controlled by copyright. Publishers lack control of articles • Increased access comes with a versioning problem • Essential problem: How do you reach readers when a Version of Record is no longer a Version of Record?32 November 21, 2011
  33. 33. Solutions Given 90% public copies are publisher version, CrossMark would be seen by the future reader Caveats: • Reader still responsible for initializing verification check • Authors often write directly from bibliographic software • Doesn’t prevent reuse/recycling of citations • Doesn’t automatically update older PDFs (without symbol) • Institutional self-archiving mandates may increase author manuscripts33 November 21, 2011
  34. 34. 1. Before Reading34 November 21, 2011
  35. 35. 2. Before Writing35 November 21, 2011
  36. 36. 3. Before Publication36 November 21, 2011
  37. 37. Tripartite Solution 1. Before Reading 2. Before Writing 3. Before Publication37 November 21, 2011

×