首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>other >Post retraction citations among manuscripts reporting a radiology-imaging diagnostic method
【2h】

Post retraction citations among manuscripts reporting a radiology-imaging diagnostic method

机译:报告放射影像诊断方法的手稿中的撤回引用

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Our study aimed to evaluate the trends of post retraction citations of articles reporting a radiology-imaging diagnostic method and to find if a different pattern exists between manuscripts reporting an ultrasound method and those reporting other radiology diagnostic methods. This study reviewed retractions stored in PubMed on the subject of radiology-imaging diagnosis to identify the motivation, time from publication to retraction, and citations before and after retraction. The PubMed database was searched on June 2017 to retrieve the retracted articles, and the Scopus database was screened to identify the post-retraction citations. The full text was screened to see the type of post-retraction citation (positiveegative) and whether the cited article appears or not as retracted. One hundred and two retractions were identified, representing 3.5% of the retracted articles indexed by PubMed, out of which 54 were included in the analysis. Half of the articles were retracted in the first 24 months after publication, and the number of post retraction citations was higher than the number of citations before retraction in 30 out of 54 cases (US methods: 9/20, other diagnostic methods 21/34, P-value = 0.2312). The plagiarism was the most common reason for retraction (31%), followed by repetitive publication (26%), and errors in data/manuscript (24%). In less than 2% of cases, the retracted articles appear as retracted in the text or reference list, while the negative citation is observed in 4.84% among manuscripts reporting an US diagnostic method and 0.32% among manuscripts reporting a diagnostic method other than US (P-value = 0.0004). No significant differences were observed when post retraction weighted citation index (WCI, no. of citations weighted by citation window) was compared to WCI prior retraction (P-value = 0.5972). In light of the reported results, we enumerated some recommendations that could potentially minimize the referral to retracted studies as valid.
机译:我们的研究旨在评估报告放射成像诊断方法的文章被撤回引用的趋势,并发现报告超声方法的手稿与报告其他放射诊断方法的手稿之间是否存在不同的模式。这项研究回顾了在PubMed中以放射影像学诊断为主题的退缩,以识别退缩的动机,从发表到退缩的时间以及退缩前后的引文。 2017年6月,检索PubMed数据库以检索已撤回的文章,并筛选了Scopus数据库以识别撤回后的引文。筛选全文以查看撤回后引用的类型(正/负)以及所引用的文章是否以撤回的方式出现。鉴定出一百零二次缩回,占PubMed索引的缩回文章的3.5%,其中54份被纳入分析。一半的文章在发表后的前24个月内被撤回,在54例病例中,有30例的撤回后引用次数高于撤回前的引用次数(美国方法:9/20,其他诊断方法:21/34 ,P值= 0.2312)。 traction窃是最常见的退缩原因(31%),其次是重复发表(26%)以及数据/手稿错误(24%)。在不到2%的情况下,被撤回的文章在文本或参考文献列表中显示为被撤回,而在报告有美国诊断方法的手稿中有4.84%的人被否定引用,在报告有US以外的诊断方法的手稿中有0.32%的人被引用( P值= 0.0004)。将收回后的加权引文索引(WCI,通过引文窗口加权的引文数量)与收回前的WCI(P值= 0.5972)进行比较时,没有观察到显着差异。根据报告的结果,我们列举了一些建议,这些建议可能会最小化对撤回研究的推荐。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号