Why do retracted papers continue to accumulate citations?

[Anonymous No.15808252]

Some Insights into the Factors Influencing Continuous Citation of Retracted Scientific Papers
https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/11/4/47
>Once retracted, the citation count of a research paper might be intuitively expected to drop precipitously. Here, we assessed the post-retraction citation of life and medical sciences papers from two top-ranked, multidisciplinary journals Nature and Science, from 2010 to 2018. Post-retraction citations accounted for a staggering 47.7% and 40.9% of total citations (median values), respectively, of the papers included in our analysis. These numbers are comparable with those from two journals with lower impact factors, and with retracted papers from the physical sciences discipline. A more qualitative assessment of five papers from the two journals with a high percentage (>50%) of post-retraction citations, all of which are associated with misconduct, reveal different contributing reasons and factors. Retracted papers associated with highly publicized misconduct cases are more prone to being cited with the retraction status indicated, or projected negatively (such as in the context of research ethics and misconduct discussions), with the latter also indicated by cross-disciplinary citations by humanities and social sciences articles. Retracted papers that retained significant validity in their main findings/conclusions may receive a large number of neutral citations that are somewhat blind to the retraction. Retracted papers in popular subject areas with massive publication outputs, particularly secondary publications such as reviews, may also have a high background citation noise. Our findings add further insights to the nature of post-retraction citations beyond the plain notion that these are largely made through sheer ignorance or negligence by the citing authors.

[Anonymous No.15808430]

>>15808252
>life and medical sciences
well here's your problem

[Anonymous No.15808485]

>>15808252
I bet this principle applies to all the mainstraeam news as well, but much more intentionally distorted and cynical

Which board got shoah'd?

[Anonymous No.15808490]

>>15808252
only if they support the politically correct opinions

[Anonymous No.15808830]

Science got kiked, that is why.

[Anonymous No.15809594]

>>15808490

[Anonymous No.15809618]

>>15808252
Your link pretty much answers your question. Literature reviews are must haves but people don't want to do them so they just copy-paste from other places without thought.

[Anonymous No.15810198]

>>15809618
there might be some good humor to made out of a literary review that focuses strictly on retracted papers

[Anonymous No.15810209]

>>15808252
Malicious retractions.