Sharing of retracted COVID-19 articles: an altmetric study
Keywords:COVID-19, Retractions, Altmetrics, Articles, Social Media
Objective: This study examines the extent to which retracted articles pertaining to COVID-19 have been shared via social and mass media based on altmetric scores.
Methods: Seventy-one retracted articles related to COVID-19 were identified from relevant databases, of which thirty-nine had an Altmetric Attention Score obtained using the Altmetrics Bookmarklet. Data extracted from the articles include overall attention score and demographics of sharers (e.g., geographic location, professional affiliation).
Results: Retracted articles related to COVID-19 were shared tens of thousands of times to an audience of potentially hundreds of millions of readers and followers. Twitter was the largest medium for sharing these articles, and the United States was the country with the most sharers. While general members of the public were the largest proportion of sharers, researchers and professionals were not immune to sharing these articles on social media and on websites, blogs, or news media.
Conclusions: These findings have potential implications for better understanding the spread of misleading or false information perpetuated in retracted scholarly publications. They emphasize the importance of quality peer review and research ethics among journals and responsibility among individuals who wish to share research findings.
Yeo-Teh NSL, Tang BL. An alarming retraction rate for scientific publications on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Account Res. 2021;28(1):47–53.
Mansourzadeh MJ, Shamsi A. Concerns about research ethics in COVID-19 publications. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health. 2020;32(8):503–4.
Elango B. Retracted articles in the biomedical literature from Indian authors. Scientometrics. 2021;126(5):3965–81.
Office of Research Integrity. Definition of research misconduct [Internet]. US Department of Health and Human Services [cited 7 Mar 2021]. <https://ori.hhs.gov/definition-research-misconduct>.
COPE Council. COPE retraction guidelines. November 2019 [version 2]. <https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4>.
Stern AM, Casadevall A, Steen RG, Fang FC. Financial costs and personal consequences of research misconduct resulting in retracted publications. Elife. 2014;3:e02956.
Steen RG. Retractions in the medical literature: how many patients are put at risk by flawed research? J Med Ethics. 2011;37(11):688–92.
Pérez-Escoda A, Jiménez-Narros C, Perlado-Lamo-de-Espinosa M, Pedrero-Esteban LM. Social networks’ engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain: health media vs. healthcare professionals. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(14):5261.
Serrano LR. Coronavirus. Por qué la comunicación tradicional no sirve [Internet]. ANIS; 2021. Available from: http://www.anisalud.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5741.
Fagbule O. Use of social media to enhance the impact of published papers. Ann Ib Postgrad Med. 2018;16(1):5–6.
Xia J, Wu T, Zhou L. Sharing of verified information about COVID-19 on social network sites: a social exchange theory perspective. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(3):1–12.
Rosenberg H, Syed S, Rezaie S. The Twitter pandemic: the critical role of Twitter in the dissemination of medical information and misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic. CJEM. 2020;22(4):418–21.
Cortegiani A, Catalisano G, Ippolito M, Giarratano A, Absalom AR, Einav S. Retracted papers on SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. Br J Anaesth. 2021;126(4):e155–e156.
Soltani P, Patini R. Retracted COVID-19 articles: a side-effect of the hot race to publication. Scientometrics. 2020;125(1):819–22.
Sutton SW. Altmetrics: what good are they to academic libraries? Kansas Library Association College and University Libraries Section Proceedings. 2014;4(2):article 1.
Ioannidis JPA. Coronavirus disease 2019: the harms of exaggerated information and non-evidence-based measures. Eur J Clin Invest. 2020;50(4):e13222.
Ortiz-Núñez R. Metric analysis of the scientific production about COVID-19 in scopus. Revista Cubana de Informacion en Ciencias de la Salud. 2020;31(3):1–20.
Uysal BB, Islamoglu MS, Koc S, Karadag M, Dokur M. Most notable 100 articles of COVID-19: an Altmetric study based on bibliometric analysis. Ir J Med Sci. 2021:1–7.
Parabhoi L. Analysis of the Altmetric top 100 Altmetric Attention Score coronavirus publications. Library Philosophy and Practice. 2021:article 4426.
Tornberg HN, Moezinia C, Wei C, Bernstein SA, Wei C, Al-Beyati R, Quan T, Diemert DJAssessing the dissemination of COVID-19 articles across social media with Altmetric and PlumX Metrics: correlational study. JJ Med Internet Res. 2021;23(1):e214080.
Rao TS, Andrade C. The MMR vaccine and autism: sensation, refutation, retraction, and fraud. Indian J Psychiatry. 2011;53(2):95–96.
Wang T, Lund BD. Announcement information provided by United States’ public libraries during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. Public Library Quarterly. 2020;39(4):283–294.
Ladan A, Haruna B, Madu AU. COVID-19 pandemic and social media news in Nigeria: the role of libraries and library associations in information dissemination. International Journal of Innovation and Research in Educational Sciences2020;7(2):125–33.
Copyright (c) 2022 Amrollah Shamsi, Brady Daniel Lund, Shohreh SeyyedHosseini
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.