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.

Problem-citations--CrossrefLive18--2018-11-13

211 views

Published on

Publishers are caretakers of science. Part of that work is maintaining the integrity of scientific literature. Science builds directly upon past work, so we need to be sure that we are building upon a solid foundation and not faulty research. Publishers need to take an active role in monitoring and tracking faulty, retracted research and its influence. I'm asking publishers to (1) clearly mark retracted papers; (2) alert authors who have already cited a retracted paper; and (3) before publishing an article, check its bibliography for retracted papers.

Retracted papers should be clearly marked everywhere they appear, but today that is not the case. Publishers can also use the CrossRef CrossMark service, which lets readers check for article updates (such as retraction) from a little red ribbon at the top of an article. Checking for citations to retracted articles, and limiting future citations, can help science self-correct by shoring up its foundations.

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Problem-citations--CrossrefLive18--2018-11-13

  1. 1. TroubleattheAcademy: ProblemCitations Jodi Schneider @jschneider jschneider@pobox.com ISSA CrossRef LIVE18 Toronto, Canada 2018-11-13
  2. 2. My metadata hats • Librarian • Teacher of future librarians & information managers • Researcher scholarly communication, science of science, ontologies… • Journal editor/founder co-founder of The Code4Lib Journal • Metadata user
  3. 3. Bibliographies are important.
  4. 4. Bibliographies are important.
  5. 5. Publishers: Take an active role in monitoring and tracking bibliographies.
  6. 6. “[Y]ou can transform a fact into fiction or a fiction into fact just by adding or subtracting references” - Bruno Latour
  7. 7. Science builds on the past By Biochem1 (Own work) CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:‫.جنگا_ست_یک‬JPG
  8. 8. Science builds on the past By Biochem1 (Own work) CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:‫.جنگا_ست_یک‬JPG {{Existing “facts”}} + {{New “facts”}}
  9. 9. Science builds on the past By Biochem1 (Own work) CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:‫.جنگا_ست_یک‬JPG {{Existing “facts”}} + {{New “facts”}} {{Stuff you cite}}
  10. 10. “Once upon a time…scientists…were builders who constructed edifices, called explanations or laws, by assembling bricks called facts. When the bricks were sound and were assembled properly, the edifice was useful and durable and brought pleasure, and sometimes reward, to the builder. If the bricks were faulty or if they were assembled badly, the edifice would crumble, and this kind of disaster could be very dangerous to innocent users of the edifice as well as to the builder, who sometimes was destroyed by the bricks.” - Bernard K. Forscher
  11. 11. Faulty Bricks: Retracted Articles • Articles are retracted due to: • Error • Plagiarism • Fraud • Duplicate publication • Failure to replicate • Ethics • Author dispute… • Reasons for retraction are often deliberately vague or unstated!
  12. 12. Faulty Bricks: Not always retracted United States Office of Research Integrity findings of fraud: • Only 1/3 retract and mention misconduct • 1/3 retract but claim error, loss of data, replication failure • About 1/3 of are not followed by any retraction or correction of tainted studies.Resnik DB, Dinse GE. Scientific retractions and corrections related to misconduct findings. J Med Ethics. 2013 Jan;39(1):46-50.
  13. 13. Retracted research treated as “bricks” • New citations continue for years after retraction. (Korpela 2010) • May take 2 years or more for retraction to occur. (Redman et al 2008) • Citations are generally positive and ignore known problems with the article. (Bar-Ilan, J., & Halevi, G. 2017). • Citations are generally positive not only in Introduction but also in Methods, Results, Discussion sections. (Van Der Vet & Nijveen 2016)
  14. 14. Citing faulty bricks harms people A paper about a clinical trial for renal disease was retracted because: “‘the trial had not been approved by the ethics committee, the involvement of a statistician could not be verified, [and] the trial was not a double-blind study, because Dr Nakao knew the treatment allocation’.” “Nevertheless, the COOPERATE study was cited by 173 review articles and 58 secondary clinical studies that enrolled a total of 35,929 patients.” “The harm done by COOPERATE is thus 4-fold: • patients were enrolled in an experimental therapy for a condition which already had an accepted therapy; • time, energy and money were wasted by patients and investigators; • false information pervaded the literature; • and combination therapy was accepted more quickly and used more widely than it might have been otherwise.” Steen, R. G. (2011). Retractions in the medical literature: how many patients are put at risk by flawed research?. Journal of Medical Ethics, 37(11), 688-692.
  15. 15. https://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines_0.pdf
  16. 16. Why should publishers care about retraction? • “Science is self-correcting” ?! • Harm to Public Health – and moral liability – Wakefield’s 1998 report in Lancet associated MMR vaccination with autism. Firestorm of public skepticism ever since. Partial retraction in 2004, but only fully retracted in 2010, 12 years after publication! – Journal editors asked: “What do we still know?” after prominent cases in anesthesiology affected patient care • Opportunities to show value: stewarding, caretaking bibliographies
  17. 17. Heavily cited retracted papers Retraction Watch, from Top 10 most highly cited retracted papers Article Year of retraction Citing Articles before retraction Citing Articles after retraction 1. Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease with a Mediterranean Diet. N Engl J Med, 2013 2018 1792 79 2. Visfatin: A protein secreted by visceral fat that mimics the effects of insulin. SCIENCE, 2005 2007 224 977 3. Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. LANCET, 1998 2010 647 512
  18. 18. 134 citations to a retracted clinical trial with faked data Schneider & Ye in preparation, updating Fulton et al 2015
  19. 19. 2715 citations of citations to clinical trial with faked data Schneider & Ye in preparation, updating Fulton et al 2015
  20. 20. What is needed to address citation of retracted literature? • A database of retractions • A database of citations • Alert authors/editors before they finalize a bibliography: – Do you know this paper is retracted? • Don’t cite, or mention the retraction • When a paper is newly retracted: – Notify authors/editors who already cited it
  21. 21. Database of Retractions: Retraction Watch Database
  22. 22. Database of Retractions: Why not Crossref? • Deposit your metadata! • Only 169 Crossref members have ever registered retractions. Are YOUR retractions registered? https://www.crossref.org/dashboard/
  23. 23. Works well with Crossmark – but just depositing the metadata helps!
  24. 24. Database of Citations: Open Citations
  25. 25. Database of Citations: Are you contributing? https://www.crossref.org/reference-distribution/
  26. 26. “Participation reports give a clear picture for anyone to see the metadata Crossref has” https://www.crossref.org/participation/ You can check whether your favourite publisher release open references – and, if it does not, please write it an email asking to release them! https://www.crossref.org/members/prep/ Slide Credit: Silvio Peroni Database of Citations: Are you contributing? Check Crossref Participation Reports
  27. 27. If you are a publisher that already submits article metadata to Crossref as a participant in their Cited-by​ service, opening your reference data can be achieved in a matter of days, either: 1. by contacting Crossref by e-mail (support@crossref.org), asking them to turn on reference distribution for all of the relevant DOI prefixes, or 2. by setting the <reference_distribution_opt> metadata element to "any" for each DOI deposit If not already a participant in Cited-by, a Crossref member can register for this service free-of-charge. Slide Credit: Silvio Peroni Database of Citations: Set YOUR citations to OPEN
  28. 28. Make metadata a priority, not an afterthought! • Join the Metadata 2020 conversations • Talk about metadata quality internally • Use Crossref participation reports data for leverage with your vendors.
  29. 29. Publishers: Take an active role in monitoring and tracking bibliographies.
  30. 30. Monitor and track bibliographies (1) Clearly mark retracted papers. (2) Before publishing an article, check its bibliography for retracted papers. (3) Alert authors who have already cited a retracted paper.
  31. 31. Bar-Ilan J, Halevi G. Post retraction citations in context: a case study. Scientometrics. 2017 Oct 1;113(1):547-65. Forscher BK. Chaos in the brickyard. Science. 1963 Oct 18;142(3590):339. Fulton AS, Coates AM, Williams MT, Howe PR, Hill AM. Persistent citation of the only published randomised controlled trial of omega-3 supplementation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease six years after its retraction. Publications. 2015 Feb 11;3(1):17-26. Korpela KM. How long does it take for the scientific literature to purge itself of fraudulent material?: the Breuning case revisited. Curr Med Res Opin. 2010;26(4):843-7. Redman B K, Yarandi HN , and Merz JF. Empirical Developments in Retraction."J Med Ethics 2008; 34(11), 807-809. Resnik DB, Dinse GE. Scientific retractions and corrections related to misconduct findings. J Med Ethics. 2013 Jan;39(1):46-50. Steen RG. Retractions in the medical literature: how many patients are put at risk by flawed research?. J Med Ethics. 2011 Jan 1:jme-2011. Van Der Vet PE, Nijveen H. Propagation of errors in citation networks: a study involving the entire citation network of a widely cited paper published in, and later retracted from, the journal Nature. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2016 Dec;1(1):3.
  32. 32. Retraction Detector Schneider & Kansara Input reference strings Visfatin: A protein secreted by visceral fat that mimics the effects of insulin. SCIENCE, JAN 21 2005 Renear, A. H., & Palmer, C. L. (2009). Strategic reading, ontologies, and the future of scientific publishing. Science, 325(5942), 828-832. Outputs retracted papers (in PubMed)

×