Retratações e citações pós-retratação na infodemia de COVID-19: a Academia está espalhando desinformação?

Retractions and post-retraction citations in the COVID-19 infodemic: is Academia spreading misinformation?

SANTOS-D´AMORIM, Karen; MELO, Rinaldo Ribeiro de; SANTOS, Raimundo Nonato Macedo dos

Resumo: A velocidade da produção de informações e a pressa em publicar artigos científicos sobre a COVID-19 em diversas áreas do conhecimento resultaram no que se denomina infodemia também no campo científico, potencialmente produzindo informações imprecisas e fontes de desinformação na comunicação científica. Isso fez com que alguns artigos fossem retratados ou despublicados devido a erros não intencionais ou má conduta deliberada, mas eles continuam sendo citados. Este artigo (i) oferece uma visão geral dos artigos e preprints retratados no âmbito da pesquisa sobre COVID-19 e (ii) analisa um conjunto de citações pós-retratação no contexto da infodemia da COVID-19. Foram analisados 56 artigos e preprints retratados utilizando a lista disponível na seção “artigos sobre coronavírus retratados (COVID-19)” na página Retraction Watch (RW). Encontrou-se que 64,3% dessas retratações se referem a artigos publicados em periódicos, 33,9% foram carregadas em servidores de preprints e 1,8% artigos de conferência. Também foram analisados 162 artigos elegíveis dos 612 registros identificados usando o mecanismo de busca do Google Scholar. A pesquisa constatou que um artigo do The Lancet continuou a ser citado mesmo após a retratação. Nesse caso, foram identificadas 214 citações pós-retratação, sendo 38% negativas (n= 81), 32% neutras (n= 69) e 30% positivas (n= 64)

Palavras-chave: Infodemic.

Abstract: The speed in producing information and the rush to publish scientific articles on COVID-19 in several knowledge areas have resulted in what is known as an infodemic also in the scientific field, potentially producing inaccurate information and sources of misinformation at scholarly communication. This has led to some articles being retracted or withdrawn due to unintentional errors or deliberate misconduct, but they continue to be cited. This article (i) gives an overview of the COVID-19 retracted articles and preprints, and (ii) analyses a set of post-retraction citations in the context of the COVID-19 infodemic. We analyzed 56 retracted articles and preprints by using the list available in the section on “retracted coronavirus (COVID-19) papers” in the Retraction Watch (RW) webpage. We found that 64.3% of these retractions were articles published in journals, 33.9% were uploaded in preprints servers, and 1.8% conference papers. We also analyzed 162 eligible articles out of 612 records identified by using the Google Scholar search engine. This research found that an article from The Lancet continued to be cited even after being retracted. In this case, we identified 214 post-retraction citations, of which 38% were negative (n=81), 32% were neutral (n=69), and 30% were positive citations (n=64)

Keywords: Retracted Articles. Retracted Preprints. Misinformation. Post-retraction Citations.

Como citar
SANTOS-D´AMORIM, K.; MELO, R. R.; SANTOS, R. N. M. D. Retratações e citações pós-retratação na infodemia de covid-19: a academia está espalhando desinformação?. , . DOI: 10.18617/liinc.v17i1.5593 Acesso em: 07 dez. 2023.

Compartilhe

Plum X Metrics

Refs

42

NLP

0.27

Referências

• AN, Julie Y., et al., 2020. Authorship growth in contemporary medical literature. Sage open medicine [online]. 2020. Vol. 8, p. 1-10.
• BAR-ILAN, Judit and HALEVI, Gali, 2017. Post retraction citations in context: a case study. Scientometrics [online]. 2017. Vol. 113, p. 547-565. [Accessed 3 September2020]. DOI 10.1007/s11192-017-2242-0. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-017-2242-0
• BORNMANN, Lutz and DANIEL, Hans-Dieter, 2008. What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation [online]. 2008. Vol. 64, no. 1, p. 45-80. [Accessed 15 September 2020]. DOI 10.1108/00220410810844150. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410810844150
• BORNMANN, Lutz, HAUNSCHILD, Robin and HUG, Sven E., 2018. Visualizing the context of citations referencing papers published by Eugene Garfield: a new type of keyword co-occurrence analysis. Scientometrics [online]. 2018. Vol. 144, p. 427-437. [Accessed 15 September 2020]. DOI 10.1007/s11192-017-2591-8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2591-815/19
• BRAMSTEDT, Katarina, 2020. The carnage of substandard research during the COVID19 pandemic: a call for quality. Journal of Medical Ethics [online]. 2020. Vol. 46, p. 803– 807. [Accessed 3 January 2021]. DOI 10.1136/medethics-2020-106494. Available from: https://jme.bmj.com/content/46/12/803
• CAVALCANTI, Alexandre B., et al., 2020. Hydroxychloroquine with or without Azithromycin in Mild-to-Moderate Covid-19. The New England Journal of Medicine [online]. 2020. Vol. 383, p. 2041-2052. [Accessed 31 January 2021]. DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa2019014. Available from: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2019014
• ELSE, Holly, 2020. How a torrent of COVID science changed research publishing - in seven charts. Nature [online]. 2020. Vol. 588, p. 553. [Accessed 3 January 2021]. DOI 10.1038/d41586-020-03564-y. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03564-y
• FALLIS, Don, 2009. A conceptual analysis of disinformation. In: iCONFERENCE [online]. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina. 2009. [Accessed 17 January 2021]. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/2142/15205
• FALLIS, Don, 2014. A Functional Analysis of Disinformation. In: iCONFERENCE [online]. Berlin: University Humboldt. 2014. [Accessed 17 January 2021]. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/2142/47258
• FANG, Ferric and CASADEVALL, Arturo, 2011. Retracted Science and the Retraction Index. Infection and Immunity [online]. 2011. Vol. 79, no. 10, p. 3855-3859. [Accessed 15 December 2020]. DOI 10.1128/IAI.05661-11. Available from: https://iai.asm.org/content/79/10/3855
• FLORIDI, Luciano, 2005. Is Semantic Information Meaningful Data? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research [online]. 2005. Vol. 70, no. 2, p. 351-370. [Accessed 17 January 2021]. DOI 10.1111/j.1933-1592.2005.tb00531.x. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2005.tb00531.x
• FOX, Christopher John, 1983. Information and misinformation: An investigation of the notions of information, misinformation, informing, and misinforming. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1983.
• KARLOVA, Natascha and FISHER, Karen, 2013. A social diffusion model of misinformation and disinformation for understanding human information behavior. Information Research [online]. 2013. Vol. 18, no. 1. [Accessed 17 January 2021]. Available from: http://www.informationr.net/ir/18-1/paper573.html#.YASiauhKjIU
• KARLOVA, Natascha and LEE, Jin Ha, 2012. Notes from the underground city of disinformation: A conceptual investigation. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology [online]. Vol. 48, no. 1, p. 01-09, 2012. [Accessed 17 January 2021]. DOI 10.1002/meet.2011.14504801133. Available from: https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/meet.2011.14504801133
• KWON, Diana, 2020. How swamped preprint servers are blocking bad coronavirus research. Nature [online]. 2020. Vol. 581, p. 130-131. [Accessed 3 January 2021]. DOI 10.1038/d41586-020-01394-6. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586020-01394-616/19
• LEI, Zi-Ning, et al., 2020. Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of malaria and repurposing in treating COVID-19. Pharmacology and Therapeutics [online]. 2020. Vol. 2016, p. 1-13. [Accessed 25 October 2020]. DOI 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2020.107672. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pharmthera.2020.107672
• MARIN, Lavinia, 2020. Three contextual dimensions of information on social media: lessons learned from the COVID-19 infodemic. Ethics and Information Technology [online]. 2020. [Accessed 5 January 2020]. DOI 10.1007/s10676-020-09550-2. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-020-09550-2#citeas
• MEHRA, Mandeep R., RUSCHITZKA, Frank and PATEL, Amit N., 2020. Retraction— Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of
• COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis. The Lancet [online]. 2020. Vol. 395, no. 10240, p. 1820. [Accessed 5 September 2020]. DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31324-6. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31324-6
• MERTON, Robert King, 1957. Priorities in Scientific Discovery: A Chapter in the Sociology of Science. American Sociological Review [online]. 1957. Vol. 22, no. 6, p. 635-659. [Accessed 10 January 2021]. DOI 10.2307/2089193. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2089193?seq=1
• MOED, Henk F., et al., 1985. The use of bibliometric data for the measurement of university research performance, Research Policy [online]. 1985. Vol. 14, no. 3, p. 131149. [Accessed 28 September 2020]. DOI 10.1016/0048-7333(85)90012-5. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(85)90012-5
• MOHAMED, Kwathar and REZAEI, Nima, 2020. COVID-19 pandemic is not the time of trial and error. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine [online]. 2020. [Accessed 20 November 2020]. DOI 10.1016/j.ajem.2020.09.020. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2020.09.020
• OFFORD, Catherine, 2020. The Surgisphere Scandal: What Went Wrong? The Scientist [online]. 1 October 2020. [Accessed 15 October 2020]. Available from: https://www.the-scientist.com/features/the-surgisphere-scandal-what-went-wrong-67955
• OXFORD English Dictionary, 2020. Infodemic. OED Third Edition [online]. April 2020. [Accessed 15 December 2020]. Available from: https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/88407009
• PALAYEW, Adam, et al., 2020. Pandemic publishing poses a new COVID-19 challenge. Nature Human Behaviour [online]. 2020. Vol. 4, p. 666-669. [Accessed 28 September2020]. DOI 10.1038/s41562-020-0911-0. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562020-0911-0
• PENNYCOOK, Gordon, et al., 2020. Fighting COVID-19 Misinformation on Social Media: Experimental Evidence for a Scalable Accuracy-Nudge Intervention. Psychological Science [online]. Vol. 31, no. 7, p. 770- 780. [Accessed 11 November 2020]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620939054
• PILLER, Charles, 2020. Who’s to blame? These three scientists are at the heart of the Surgisphere COVID-19 scandal. Science [online]. 8 June 2020. [Accessed 6 October17/19 2020]. Available from: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/whos-blamethese-three-scientists-are-heart-surgisphere-covid-194-scandal
• SANTOS-D’AMORIM, Karen, et al., 2021. Retratados, despublicados e ainda citados: análise das citações recebidas pós-retratação em artigos de pesquisadores brasileiros. Informação and Sociedade, Vol. 31, no. 1, 2021. In press.
• QUINN, Emma K., FAZEL, Sajjad S. and PETERS, Cheryl E., 2020. The Instagram Infodemic: Cobranding of Conspiracy Theories, Coronavirus Disease 2019 and Authority-Questioning Beliefs. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking [online]. 18 December 2020. [Accessed 28 September 2020]. DOI 10.1089/cyber.2020.0663. Available from: http://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.0663
• RESNIK, David B. and STEWART, Neal, 2012. Misconduct versus Honest Error and Scientific Disagreement. Accountability in Research [online]. 2012. Vol. 19, no. 1, p. 56– 63. [Accessed 17 January 2021]. DOI 10.1080/08989621.2012.650948. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3443861/
• RETRACTION Watch database, 2019. Retracted coronavirus (COVID-19) papers. Retraction Watch [online]. 2019. [Accessed 15 December 2020]. Available from: https://retractionwatch.com/retracted-coronavirus-covid-19-papers/
• SCHNEIDER, Jodi, et al., 2020. Continued post-retraction citation of a fraudulent clinical trial report, 11 years after it was retracted for falsifying data. Scientometrics [online]. 2020. Vol. 125, p. 2877-2913. [Accessed 10 November 2020]. DOI 10.1007/s11192-020-03631-1. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03631-1
• SHADISH, William R., et al., 1995. Author judgments about works they cite – three studies from psychology journals. Social Studies of Science [online]. 1995. Vol. 25, no. 3, p. 477-498. [Accessed 10 November 2020]. DOI 10.1177/030631295025003003. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/030631295025003003
• STEEN, R. Grant, 2011. Retractions in the medical literature: how many patients are put at risk by flawed research? Journal of Medical Ethics [online]. 2020. Vol. 37, p. 688692. [Accessed 10 November 2020]. DOI 10.1136/jme.2011.043133. Available from: https://jme.bmj.com/content/37/11/688
• STEPHENS, Monica, 2020. A geospatial infodemic: Mapping Twitter conspiracy theories of COVID 19. Dialogues in Human Geography [online]. 2020. Vol. 10, no. 2, p. 276-281. [Accessed 22 December 2020]. DOI 10.1177/2043820620935683. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2043820620935683
• SWIRE‐THOMPSON, Briony and LAZER, David, 2020. Public health and online misinformation: Challenges and recommendations. Annual Review of Public Health [online]. 2020. Vol. 41, no. 1, p. 433–451. [Accessed 17 January 2021]. DOI 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094127. Available from: https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094127#
• TEIXEIRA DA SILVA, Jaime A. and BORNEMANN-CIMENTI, Helmar, 2017. Why do some retracted papers continue to be cited? Scientometrics [online]. 2017. Vol. 110, p. 365370. [Accessed 10 November 2020]. DOI 10.1007/s11192-016-2178-9. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11192-016-2178-918/19
• TEIXEIRA DA SILVA, Jaime A. and DOBRÁNSZKI, Judit, 2017. Highly cited retracted papers. Scientometrics [online]. 2017. Vol. 110, p. 1653-1661. [Accessed 10 November2020]. DOI 10.1007/s11192-016-2227-4. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11192-016-2227-4
• VLASSCHAERT, Caitlyn, TOPF, Joel M. and HIREMATH, Swapnil, 2020. Proliferation of Papers and Preprints During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: Progress or Problems With Peer Review? Advances in chronic kidney disease [online]. 2020. Vol. 27, no. 5, p. 418–426. [Accessed 10 November 2020]. DOI 10.1053/j.ackd.2020.08.003. Available from: https://www.ackdjournal.org/article/S1548-5595(20)301191/fulltext#%20
• WAGER, Elizabeth, 2009. Retractions: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Croatian Medical Journal [online]. 2009. Vol. 50, no. 6, p. 532–535. [Accessed 5 January 2020]. DOI 10.3325/cmj.2009.50.532. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2802086/
• WARDLE, Claire and DERAKHSHAN, Hossein, 2018. Thinking about ‘information disorder’: formats of misinformation, disinformation, and mal-information. In: IRETON, Cherilyn and POSETTI, Julie. Journalism, ‘fake news’ and disinformation. Paris: UNESCO., 2018. p. 43-54. [Accessed 17 January 2021]. Available from: https://bit.ly/2FW3Esb
• ZAROCOSTAS, John, 2020. How to fight an infodemic. The Lancet [online]. 2020. Vol. 395, no. 10225, p. 676. [Accessed 26 November 2020]. DOI 10.1016/S01406736(20)30461-X. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30461-X19/19