Retracted Citations and Self-citations in Retracted Publications: A Comparative Study of Plagiarism and Fake Peer Review

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.00673v1
• Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2025 05:05:09 GMT
• Title: Retracted Citations and Self-citations in Retracted Publications: A Comparative Study of Plagiarism and Fake Peer Review
• Authors: Kiran Sharmaa, Parul Khurana,
• Abstract summary: We focused on two retraction categories: plagiarism and fake peer review. The trend shows a steady average growth in plagiarism cases of 1.2 times, while the fake peer review exhibits a fluctuating pattern with an average growth of 5.5 times. The total number of retracted citations for plagiarized papers is 1.8 times higher than that for fake peer review papers.
• Score: 0.7673339435080445
• License:
• Abstract: Retracted citations remain a significant concern in academia as they perpetuate misinformation and compromise the integrity of scientific literature despite their invalidation. To analyze the impact of retracted citations, we focused on two retraction categories: plagiarism and fake peer review. The data set was sourced from Scopus and the reasons for the retraction were mapped using the Retraction Watch database. The retraction trend shows a steady average growth in plagiarism cases of 1.2 times, while the fake peer review exhibits a fluctuating pattern with an average growth of 5.5 times. Although fewer papers are retracted in the plagiarism category compared to fake peer reviews, plagiarism-related papers receive 2.5 times more citations. Furthermore, the total number of retracted citations for plagiarized papers is 1.8 times higher than that for fake peer review papers. Within the plagiarism category, 46% of the retracted citations are due to plagiarism, while 53.6% of the retracted citations in the fake peer review category are attributed to the fake peer review. The results also suggest that fake peer review cases are identified and retracted more rapidly than plagiarism cases. Finally, self-citations constitute a small percentage of citations to retracted papers but are notably higher among citations that are later retracted in both the categories.

Related papers

• CopyBench: Measuring Literal and Non-Literal Reproduction of Copyright-Protected Text in Language Model Generation [132.00910067533982]
  We introduce CopyBench, a benchmark designed to measure both literal and non-literal copying in LM generations. We find that, although literal copying is relatively rare, two types of non-literal copying -- event copying and character copying -- occur even in models as small as 7B parameters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-09T17:58:18Z)
• CausalCite: A Causal Formulation of Paper Citations [80.82622421055734]
  CausalCite is a new way to measure the significance of a paper by assessing the causal impact of the paper on its follow-up papers. It is based on a novel causal inference method, TextMatch, which adapts the traditional matching framework to high-dimensional text embeddings. We demonstrate the effectiveness of CausalCite on various criteria, such as high correlation with paper impact as reported by scientific experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-05T23:09:39Z)
• Characterizing the effect of retractions on scientific careers [1.6758573326215693]
  Retracting academic papers is a fundamental tool of quality control when the validity of papers or the integrity of authors is questioned. Previous studies have highlighted the adverse effects of retractions on citation counts and coauthors' citations. Our investigation focuses on the likelihood of authors exiting scientific publishing following a retraction, and the evolution of collaboration networks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-11T15:52:39Z)
• Forgotten Knowledge: Examining the Citational Amnesia in NLP [63.13508571014673]
  We show how far back in time do we tend to go to cite papers? How has that changed over time, and what factors correlate with this citational attention/amnesia? We show that around 62% of cited papers are from the immediate five years prior to publication, whereas only about 17% are more than ten years old. We show that the median age and age diversity of cited papers were steadily increasing from 1990 to 2014, but since then, the trend has reversed, and current NLP papers have an all-time low temporal citation diversity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-29T18:30:34Z)
• Do "bad" citations have "good" effects? [0.15229257192293197]
  We argue that mandating substantive citing may have underappreciated consequences on the allocation of attention and dynamism in scientific literatures. By turning rhetorical citing on-and-off, we find that rhetorical citing increases the correlation between quality and citations. This occurs because rhetorical citing redistributes some citations from a stable set of elite-quality papers to a more dynamic set with high-to-moderate quality and high rhetorical value.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-12T23:42:06Z)
• How do Authors' Perceptions of their Papers Compare with Co-authors' Perceptions and Peer-review Decisions? [87.00095008723181]
  Authors have roughly a three-fold overestimate of the acceptance probability of their papers. Female authors exhibit a marginally higher (statistically significant) miscalibration than male authors. At least 30% of respondents of both accepted and rejected papers said that their perception of their own paper improved after the review process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-22T15:59:30Z)
• Detecting and analyzing missing citations to published scientific entities [5.811229506383401]
  We design a special method Citation Recommendation for Published Scientific Entity (CRPSE) based on the cooccurrences between published scientific entities and in-text citations. We conduct a statistical analysis on missing citations among papers published in prestigious computer science conferences in 2020. On a median basis, the papers proposing these published scientific entities with missing citations were published 8 years ago.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-18T18:08:20Z)
• Towards generating citation sentences for multiple references with intent control [86.53829532976303]
  We build a novel generation model with the Fusion-in-Decoder approach to cope with multiple long inputs. Experiments demonstrate that the proposed approaches provide much more comprehensive features for generating citation sentences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-02T15:32:24Z)
• Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science. Evidence of critical issues affecting established journals [69.76097138157816]
  Probabilistic text generators have been used to produce fake scientific papers for more than a decade. Complex AI-powered generation techniques produce texts indistinguishable from that of humans. Some websites offer to rewrite texts for free, generating gobbledegook full of tortured phrases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-12T20:47:08Z)
• Taxonomy of academic plagiarism methods [0.0]
  The article defines plagiarism, explains the origin of the term, as well as plagiarism related terms. It identifies the extent of the plagiarism domain and then focuses on the plagiarism subdomain of text documents, for which it gives an overview of current classifications. The article suggests the new classification of academic plagiarism, describes sorts and methods of plagiarism, types and categories, approaches and phases of plagiarism detection, the classification of methods and algorithms for plagiarism detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-25T16:49:08Z)
• How are journals cited? characterizing journal citations by type of citation [0.0]
  We present initial results on the statistical characterization of citations to journals based on citation function. We also present initial results of characterizing the ratio of supports and disputes received by a journal as a potential indicator of quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-22T14:15:50Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.