Retracted Science and the Retraction Index

By F. Fang, A. Casadevall. Infection and Immunity, 2011

345 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

New ways of making academic articles easier to read (2012, background): “The last sentence in this footnote is particularly important in these days of increasing litigation and the retraction of articles (Fang and Casadevall, 2011; Steen, 2011).”
The natural selection of bad science (2016, background): “Investigations have found that the statistical power of papers published in prestigious (high impact factor) journals is no different from those with lower impact factors [84], while the rate of retractions for journals is positively correlated with impact factor [95].”
What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017, neutral): “Page 3 of 32 (Fang & Casadevall, 2011).”
Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications (2012, background): “Studies of selected retracted articles have suggested that error is more common than fraud as a cause of retraction (3–5) and that rates of retraction correlate with journal-impact factor (6).”
Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank (2013, methodology): “Given all of the above evidence, it is therefore not surprising that journal rank is also a strong predictor of the rate of retractions (Figure 1D) (Liu, 2006; Cokol et al., 2007; Fang and Casadevall, 2011).”