Editing Scientific citation

{{Short description|Reference in scholarly work to past work}}
{{for|Wikipedia's guide to referencing scientific and mathematical articles|Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines|selfref=y}}
{{Refimprove|date=August 2007}}
{{Leadcite comment}}{{Use dmy dates|date=March 2025}}[[File:Scientific citations.png|thumb|The reference section in a scientific paper]]
'''Scientific [[citation]]''' is the process of systematically acknowledging sources from which information, data, ideas, or direct quotations are drawn in [[Academic writing|scholarly work.]]Sources in science are typically previously-published [[Peer review|peer-reviewed]] [[Academic journal|journal articles]], books, [[Thesis|theses]] or dissertations, [[Conference proceedings|conference papers]], and rarely private or public communications. Citations connect a researcher’s work with existing [[Literature review|literature]],<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Anderson |first1=Marc H. |last2=Lemken |first2=Russell K. |date=2023-01-01 |title=Citation Context Analysis as a Method for Conducting Rigorous and Impactful Literature Reviews |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1094428120969905 |journal=Organizational Research Methods |language=EN |volume=26 |issue=1 |pages=77–106 |doi=10.1177/1094428120969905 |issn=1094-4281|doi-access=free }}</ref> ensuring transparency, [[academic integrity]],<ref>{{Cite book |last=Wouters |first=Paul |title=Theories of Informetrics and Scholarly Communication |date=2016 |publisher=De Gruyter |isbn=978-3-11-029803-1 |editor-last=Sugimoto |editor-first=Cassidy R. |location=Berlin |publication-date=2017 |pages=72–92 |chapter=Semiotics and Citations |editor-last2=Cronin |editor-first2=Blaise}}</ref> and safe outcomes such as in medical science.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Ngatuvai |first1=Micah |last2=Autrey |first2=Cody |last3=McKenny |first3=Mark |last4=Elkbuli |first4=Adel |date=September 2021 |title=Significance and implications of accurate and proper citations in clinical research studies |journal=Annals of Medicine and Surgery (2012) |volume=72 |pages=102841 |doi=10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102841 |issn=2049-0801 |pmc=8712974 |pmid=34992774}}</ref> Effective citation practices require clear, standardized mechanisms for referencing materials, particularly crucial as electronic publishing and online data repositories expand rapidly.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Wouters |first=Paul |title=Theories of informetrics and scholarly communication: a festschrift in honor of Blaise Cronin |date=2016 |publisher=De Gruyter |isbn=978-3-11-029803-1 |editor-last=Sugimoto |editor-first=Cassidy R. |location=Berlin |publication-date=2017 |pages=72–92 |chapter=Semiotics and Citations |editor-last2=Cronin |editor-first2=Blaise}}</ref>

Scientists generate [[Epistemology|new knowledge]] by practicing the [[scientific method]] on the thoughts, ideas, and work that scientists did before them.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Amsterdamska |first1=Olga |last2=Leydesdorff |first2=L. |date=1989-05-01 |title=Citations: Indicators of significance? |url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02017065 |journal=Scientometrics |language=en |volume=15 |issue=5 |pages=449–471 |doi=10.1007/BF02017065 |issn=1588-2861|url-access=subscription }}</ref> By applying scholarly principles, scientists may report their findings which become part of the [[Knowledge transfer|chain of knowledge]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Barrett |first=Creighton |date=September 2017 |title=Building Trust in Information: Perspectives on the Frontiers of Provenance |url=https://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article/80/2/466/24392/Building-Trust-in-Information-Perspectives-on-the |journal=The American Archivist |volume=80 |issue=2 |pages=466–470 |doi=10.17723/0360-9081-80.2.466 |issn=0360-9081|url-access=subscription }}</ref> Citations profoundly shape the structure of scientific knowledge by explicitly linking new research with existing academic literature.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Fear |first1=Kathleen |last2=Donaldson |first2=Devan Ray |date=September 2012 |title=Provenance and credibility in scientific data repositories |url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10502-012-9172-7 |journal=Archival Science |language=en |volume=12 |issue=3 |pages=319–339 |doi=10.1007/s10502-012-9172-7 |hdl=2022/22473 |issn=1389-0166|hdl-access=free }}</ref> They define line of thought, give context to research within larger academic debates, and contribute to shared scholarly memory.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Kousha |first1=Kayvan |last2=Thelwall |first2=Mike |date=2017 |title=Are wikipedia citations important evidence of the impact of scholarly articles and books? |url=https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23694 |journal=Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology |language=en |volume=68 |issue=3 |pages=762–779 |doi=10.1002/asi.23694 |hdl=2436/609614 |issn=2330-1643|hdl-access=free }}</ref> Accurate citation practices that knowledge is verifiable, essential for scientific advancement.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Small |first=Henry |title=Theories of Informetrics and Scholarly Communication |date=2016 |publisher=De Gruyter |isbn=978-3-11-029803-1 |editor-last=Sugimoto |editor-first=Cassidy R. |location=Berlin |chapter=Referencing as Cooperation and Competition |editor-last2=Cronin |editor-first2=Blaise}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Leydesdorff |first=Loet |title=Theories of Informetrics and Scholarly Communication |date=2016 |publisher=De Gruyter |isbn=978-3-11-029803-1 |editor-last=Sugimoto |editor-first=Cassidy R. |location=Berlin |chapter=Information, Meaning, and Intellectual Organization in Networks of Inter-Human Communication |editor-last2=Cronin |editor-first2=Blaise}}</ref>

Like any complex system, there are problems, write large, with scientific citation. One issue is that rapid increase in digital data creates challenges in reliably verifying datasets due to a lack of standardized referencing practices, especially for online sets of data.  Additionally, citation bias arises when researchers disproportionately reference studies based on [[Familiarity heuristic|reputation]] or ease of access rather than [[Meritocracy|merit]], potentially marginalizing equally valid but less visible research.  Also, citations can sometimes [[Johari window|unintentionally distort]] or misrepresent original data or contexts, either through oversight, [[Misuse of p-values|misunderstanding]], or [[Cherry picking|selective interpretation]], thereby complicating accurate knowledge transfer and verification.

==Patent references==
In [[patent law]], the citation of previous works, or [[prior art]], helps establish the [[uniqueness]] of the [[invention]] being described. The focus in this practice is to claim [[originality]] for [[Commerce|commercial]] purposes, and so the author is motivated to avoid citing works that cast doubt on their originality.  This does not appear to be "scientific" citation. Inventors and lawyers have a legal obligation to cite all relevant art; not doing so risks invalidating the patent.{{Citation needed|date=July 2016}} The patent examiner is obliged to list all further prior art found in searches.{{Citation needed|date=July 2016}}

==Digital object identifier (DOI)==
{{Excerpt|Digital object identifier|paragraphs=1-2|only=paragraphs}}
== Research and development ==
=== Citation analysis ===
{{Excerpt|Citation analysis|only=paragraphs}}
=== Citation frequency ===
{{See also|Metascience#Evaluation and incentives}}
Modern scientists are sometimes judged by the number of times their work is cited by others—this is actually a key indicator of the relative [[impact factor|importance]] of a work in science.  Accordingly, individual scientists are motivated to have their own work cited early and often and as widely as possible, but all other scientists are motivated to eliminate unnecessary citations so as not to devalue this means of [[judgment]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Aksnes |first1=Dag W. |last2=Langfeldt |first2=Liv |last3=Wouters |first3=Paul |date=2019-01-01 |title=Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories |journal=SAGE Open |volume=9 |doi=10.1177/2158244019829575 |s2cid=150974941 |language=en|doi-access=free |hdl=1887/78034 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> A formal [[citation index]] tracks which referred and reviewed papers have referred which other such papers. Baruch Lev and other advocates of [[accounting reform]] consider the number of times a [[patent]] is cited to be a significant metric of its quality, and thus of [[innovation]].{{Citation needed|date=July 2016}} [[Scientific review|Reviews]] often replace citations to primary studies.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Gurevitch |first1=Jessica |last2=Koricheva |first2=Julia |last3=Nakagawa |first3=Shinichi |last4=Stewart |first4=Gavin |title=Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis |journal=Nature |date=March 2018 |volume=555 |issue=7695 |pages=175–182 |doi=10.1038/nature25753 |pmid=29517004 |bibcode=2018Natur.555..175G |s2cid=3761687 |language=en |issn=1476-4687|url=https://unsworks.unsw.edu.au/bitstreams/0e39d845-2f09-4f3f-8a73-8aaf1ccde95d/download |hdl=1959.4/unsworks_71830 |hdl-access=free }}</ref>

Citation-frequency is one indicator used in [[scientometrics]].

=== Replication crisis ===
Some studies explore citations and citation-frequencies. Researchers found that papers in leading [[Scientific journal|journals]] with findings that [[Replication crisis|can not be replicated]] tend to be cited more than [[Reproducibility|reproducible science]]. Results that are published unreproducibly – or not in a replicable sufficiently transparent way – are more likely to be wrong, may slow progress and, according to an author, "a simple way to check how often studies have been repeated, and whether or not the original findings are confirmed" is needed. The authors also put forward possible explanations for this state of affairs.<ref>{{cite news |title=A new replication crisis: Research that is less likely to be true is cited more |url=https://phys.org/news/2021-05-replication-crisis-true-cited.html |access-date=14 June 2021 |work=phys.org |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Serra-Garcia |first1=Marta |last2=Gneezy |first2=Uri |title=Nonreplicable publications are cited more than replicable ones |journal=Science Advances |date=2021-05-01 |volume=7 |issue=21 |pages=eabd1705 |doi=10.1126/sciadv.abd1705 |pmid=34020944 |pmc=8139580 |bibcode=2021SciA....7.1705S |language=en |issn=2375-2548}}</ref>

=== Progress and citation consolidation ===
[[File:Papers and patents are using narrower portions of existing knowledge.png|thumb|Various results from scientific citation analysis<!--They may e.g. suggest papers are "using narrower portions of existing knowledge" according to one study.--><ref name="10.1038/s41586-022-05543-x"/><br/>([[commons:Category:Disruption analysis based on the CD index|more graphs]])]]
Two [[Meta-analysis|meta-analyses]] reported that in a growing [[scientific field]], citations disproportionately cite already well-cited papers, possibly slowing and inhibiting [[Progress#Scientific progress|progress]] to some degree. They find that "structures fostering disruptive scholarship and focusing attention on novel ideas" could be important.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Snyder |first1=Alison |title=New ideas are struggling to emerge from the sea of science |date=14 October 2021 |url=https://www.axios.com/science-new-ideas-dbe29601-010c-411a-b79d-bbd1388ec5a0.html |publisher=Axios |access-date=15 November 2021}}</ref><ref name="atlantic">{{cite news |last1=Thompson |first1=Derek |title=The Consolidation-Disruption Index Is Alarming |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2023/01/academia-research-scientific-papers-progress/672694/ |access-date=25 February 2023 |work=The Atlantic |date=11 January 2023 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Chu |first1=Johan S. G. |last2=Evans |first2=James A. |title=Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |date=12 October 2021 |volume=118 |issue=41 |doi=10.1073/pnas.2021636118 |pmid=34607941 |pmc=8522281 |bibcode=2021PNAS..11821636C |language=en |issn=0027-8424 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

Other metascientists introduced the 'CD index' intended to characterize "how papers and patents change networks of citations in [[science]] and [[technology]]" and reported [[Metascience#Growth or stagnation of science overall|that it has declined]], which they interpreted as "[[progress|slowing rates]] of disruption". They proposed linking this to changes {{tooltip|to three "use of previous knowledge"-indicators|"the diversity of work cited, mean number of self-citations and mean age of work cited"}} which they interpreted as "contemporary [[Discovery (observation)#In science|discovery]] and [[invention]]" being informed by "a narrower scope of existing [[knowledge]]". The overall number of papers has risen while the total of "highly disruptive" papers has not. The [[1998 in science#Astronomy and space exploration|1998]] discovery of the [[accelerating expansion of the universe]] has a CD index of 0. Their results also suggest scientists and inventors "may be struggling to keep up with the pace of knowledge expansion".<ref>{{cite news |last1=Tejada |first1=Patricia Contreras |title=With fewer disruptive studies, is science becoming an echo chamber? |url=https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/with-fewer-disruptive-studies-is-science-becoming-an-echo-chamber/ |access-date=15 February 2023 |work=Advanced Science News |date=13 January 2023 |archive-date=15 February 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230215233007/https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/with-fewer-disruptive-studies-is-science-becoming-an-echo-chamber/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="atlantic"/><ref name="10.1038/s41586-022-05543-x">{{cite journal |last1=Park |first1=Michael |last2=Leahey |first2=Erin |last3=Funk |first3=Russell J. |title=Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time |journal=Nature |date=January 2023 |volume=613 |issue=7942 |pages=138–144 |doi=10.1038/s41586-022-05543-x |pmid=36600070 |language=en |issn=1476-4687|arxiv=2106.11184|bibcode=2023Natur.613..138P |s2cid=255466666 }}</ref>

=== IT systems ===
==== Research discovery ====
[[File:Stages of the publication process, the generic research process, and The OPTIMETA Way with their connections.png|thumb|Stages of research and publication processes and metadata, including citation metadata<ref name="metadata"/>]]
[[Recommendation system]]s sometimes also use citations to find similar studies to the one the user is currently reading or that the user may be interested in and may find useful.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Beel |first1=Joeran |last2=Gipp |first2=Bela |last3=Langer |first3=Stefan |last4=Breitinger |first4=Corinna |title=Research-paper recommender systems: a literature survey |journal=International Journal on Digital Libraries |date=1 November 2016 |volume=17 |issue=4 |pages=305–338 |doi=10.1007/s00799-015-0156-0 |s2cid=254074596 |language=en |issn=1432-1300|url=https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstreams/8b886e4a-ea4b-4eae-bba1-19918f353170/download }}</ref> Better availability of integrable open citation information could be useful in addressing the "overwhelming amount of scientific literature".<ref name="metadata">{{cite arXiv |last1=Nüst |first1=Daniel |last2=Yücel |first2=Gazi |last3=Cordts |first3=Anette |last4=Hauschke |first4=Christian |title=Enriching the scholarly metadata commons with citation metadata and spatio-temporal metadata to support responsible research assessment and research discovery |date=4 January 2023|class=cs.DL |eprint=2301.01502 }}</ref>

==== Q&A agents ====
Knowledge agents may use citations to find studies that are relevant to the user's query.

==== Wikipedia ====
[[File:Box and violin plots for the years of publication of the scientific articles referenced in Wikipedia (outliers are shown in red).png|thumb|Years of publication of a set of analyzed scientific articles referenced in Wikipedia<ref name="10.1371/journal.pone.0228713"/>]]
There have been analyses of citations of [[science information on Wikipedia]] or of scientific citations on the site, e.g. enabling listing the most relevant or most-cited scientific journals and categories and dominant domains.<ref name="10.1371/journal.pone.0228713"/> Since 2015, the [[altmetrics]] platform [[Altmetric.com]] also shows citing English Wikipedia articles for a given study, later adding other language editions.<ref name="10.1371/journal.pone.0228713">{{cite journal |last1=Arroyo-Machado |first1=Wenceslao |last2=Torres-Salinas |first2=Daniel |last3=Herrera-Viedma |first3=Enrique |last4=Romero-Frías |first4=Esteban |title=Science through Wikipedia: A novel representation of open knowledge through co-citation networks |journal=PLOS ONE |date=10 February 2020 |volume=15 |issue=2 |pages=e0228713 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0228713 |pmid=32040488 |pmc=7010282 |arxiv=2002.04347 |bibcode=2020PLoSO..1528713A |language=en |issn=1932-6203|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=New Source Alert: Wikipedia |url=https://www.altmetric.com/blog/new-source-alert-wikipedia/ |website=Altmetric |access-date=25 February 2023 |language=en |date=4 February 2015}}</ref> The Wikimedia platform under development Scholia also shows "Wikipedia mentions" of scientific works.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Arroyo-Machado |first1=Wenceslao |last2=Torres-Salinas |first2=Daniel |last3=Costas |first3=Rodrigo |title=Wikinformetrics: Construction and description of an open Wikipedia knowledge graph data set for informetric purposes |journal=Quantitative Science Studies |date=20 December 2022 |volume=3 |issue=4 |pages=931–952 |doi=10.1162/qss_a_00226|s2cid=253107766 |hdl=10481/80532 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> A study suggests a citation on Wikipedia "could be considered a public parallel to scholarly citation".<ref name="Altmetrics">{{cite arXiv |last1=Priem |first1=Jason |title=Altmetrics (Chapter from Beyond Bibliometrics: Harnessing Multidimensional Indicators of Scholarly Impact) |date=6 July 2015|class=cs.DL |eprint=1507.01328 }}</ref> A scientific publication being "cited in a Wikipedia article is considered an indicator of some form of impact for this publication" and it may be possible to detect certain publications through changes to Wikipedia articles.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Zagorova |first1=Olga |last2=Ulloa |first2=Roberto |last3=Weller |first3=Katrin |last4=Flöck |first4=Fabian |title="I updated the &lt;ref&gt;": The evolution of references in the English Wikipedia and the implications for altmetrics |journal=Quantitative Science Studies |date=12 April 2022 |volume=3 |issue=1 |pages=147–173 |doi=10.1162/qss_a_00171|doi-access=free|url=https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/document/81439/1/ssoar-qss-2022-1-zagorova_et_al-I_updated_the_ref_The.pdf }}</ref> Wikimedia Research's Cite-o-Meter tool showed a league table of which academic publishers are most cited on Wikipedia<ref name="Altmetrics"/> as does a page by the "Academic Journals WikiProject".<ref>{{cite arXiv |last1=Katz |first1=Gilad |last2=Rokach |first2=Lior |title=Wikiometrics: A Wikipedia Based Ranking System |date=8 January 2016|class=cs.DL |eprint=1601.01058 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Journals_cited_by_Wikipedia |website=Wikipedia |access-date=25 February 2023 |language=en |date=15 September 2022}}</ref>{{Circular reference|date=August 2024}}{{additional citation needed|date=February 2023}} Research indicates a large share of academic citations on the platform are [[paywall]]ed and hence inaccessible to many readers.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Leva |first1=Federico |title=Wikipedia is open to all, the research underpinning it should be too. |url=https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2022/02/21/wikipedia-is-open-to-all-the-research-underpinning-it-should-be-too/ |website=Impact of Social Sciences |access-date=25 February 2023 |date=21 February 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Tattersall |first1=Andy |last2=Sheppard |first2=Nick |last3=Blake |first3=Thom |last4=O'Neill |first4=Kate |last5=Carroll |first5=Chris |date=2 February 2022 |title=Exploring open access coverage of Wikipedia-cited research across the White Rose Universities |journal=Insights: The UKSG Journal |volume=35 |pages=3 |doi=10.1629/uksg.559 |s2cid=246504456 |doi-access=free|url=https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/183212/1/559-5918-1-PB.pdf }}</ref> "<sup><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[citation needed|citation&nbsp;needed]]]</sup>" is a [[tag (metadata)|tag]] added by [[Wikipedia editor]]s to unsourced statements in articles requesting [[citation]]s to be added.<ref name="Redi">{{cite book |last1=Redi |first1=Miriam |url=https://doi.org/10.1145/3308558.3313618 |last2=Fetahu |first2=Besnik |last3=Morgan |first3=Jonathan |last4=Taraborelli |first4=Dario |title=The World Wide Web Conference |chapter=Citation Needed: A Taxonomy and Algorithmic Assessment of Wikipedia's Verifiability |date=13 May 2019 |publisher=Association for Computing Machinery |isbn=978-1-4503-6674-8 |series=WWW '19 |location=San Francisco, CA, USA |pages=1567–1578 |doi=10.1145/3308558.3313618 |s2cid=67856117}}</ref> The phrase is reflective of the [[policy|policies]] of verifiability and no original research on [[Wikipedia]] and has become a general [[Internet meme]].<ref name=":0">{{Cite book |last1=McDowell |first1=Zachary J. |title=Wikipedia and the Representation of Reality |last2=Vetter |first2=Matthew A. |date=2022 |publisher=Routledge, Taylor & Francis |isbn=978-1-000-47427-5 |pages=34 |language=English |chapter=What Counts as Information: The Construction of Reliability and Verifability |doi=10.4324/9781003094081 |doi-access=free|hdl=20.500.12657/50520 }}</ref>

==== Differentiation of semantic citation contexts ====
[[File:Disagreement in the scientific literature by field.jpg|thumb|Percent of all citances in each field that contain signals of disagreement<ref name="10.7554/eLife.72737">{{cite journal |last1=Lamers |first1=Wout S |last2=Boyack |first2=Kevin |last3=Larivière |first3=Vincent |last4=Sugimoto |first4=Cassidy R |last5=van Eck |first5=Nees Jan |last6=Waltman |first6=Ludo |last7=Murray |first7=Dakota |title=Investigating disagreement in the scientific literature |journal=eLife |date=24 December 2021 |volume=10 |pages=e72737 |doi=10.7554/eLife.72737 |pmid=34951588 |pmc=8709576 |issn=2050-084X |doi-access=free }}</ref>]]
The tool scite.ai tracks and links citations of papers as 'Supporting', 'Mentioning', or 'Contrasting' the study, differentiating between these contexts of citations to some degree which may be useful for evaluation/metrics and e.g. discovering studies or statements contrasting statements within a specific study.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Khamsi |first1=Roxanne |title=Coronavirus in context: Scite.ai tracks positive and negative citations for COVID-19 literature |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01324-6 |access-date=19 February 2022 |journal=Nature |date=1 May 2020 |language=en |doi=10.1038/d41586-020-01324-6}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Nicholson |first1=Josh M. |last2=Mordaunt |first2=Milo |last3=Lopez |first3=Patrice |last4=Uppala |first4=Ashish |last5=Rosati |first5=Domenic |last6=Rodrigues |first6=Neves P. |last7=Grabitz |first7=Peter |last8=Rife |first8=Sean C. |title=scite: A smart citation index that displays the context of citations and classifies their intent using deep learning |journal=Quantitative Science Studies |date=5 November 2021 |volume=2 |issue=3 |pages=882–898 |doi=10.1162/qss_a_00146|s2cid=232283218 |doi-access=free |url=https://direct.mit.edu/qss/article-pdf/2/3/882/1970740/qss_a_00146.pdf }}</ref><ref name="newbot"/>

==== Retractions ====
The Scite Reference Check bot is an extension of scite.ai that scans new article PDFs "for references to retracted papers, and posts both the citing and retracted papers on Twitter" and also "flags when new studies cite older ones that have issued corrections, errata, withdrawals, or expressions of concern".<ref name="newbot">{{cite web |title=New bot flags scientific studies that cite retracted papers |url=https://www.nature.com/nature-index/news-blog/new-bot-flags-scientific-research-studies-that-cite-retracted-papers |website=Nature Index |date=2 February 2021 |access-date=25 January 2023 |language=en}}</ref> Studies have suggested as few as 4% of citations to retracted papers clearly recognize the [[retraction in academic publishing|retraction]].<ref name="newbot"/> Research found "that authors tend to keep citing retracted papers long after they have been red flagged, although at a lower rate".<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Peng |first1=Hao |last2=Romero |first2=Daniel M. |last3=Horvát |first3=Emőke-Ágnes |title=Dynamics of cross-platform attention to retracted papers |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |date=21 June 2022 |volume=119 |issue=25 |pages=e2119086119 |doi=10.1073/pnas.2119086119 |doi-access=free |pmid=35700358 |pmc=9231484 |arxiv=2110.07798 |bibcode=2022PNAS..11919086P |language=en |issn=0027-8424}}</ref>

==See also==
* [[Citation]]
* [[Citation index]]
* [[Peer review]]
* [[Prior art]]
* [[Scientific method]]
* [[Philosophy of science]]

== Notes ==
{{reflist|group=note}}
{{notelist}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

== Further reading ==
* ''Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science'' by Charles Bazerman [http://wac.colostate.edu/books/bazerman_shaping/]
* ''Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts'' by [[Bruno Latour]] and [[Steve Woolgar]]
* ''[[The Structure of Scientific Revolutions]]'' by [[Thomas Kuhn]]

== External links ==
* [https://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0212043 Read before you cite]

[[Category:Library science]]
[[Category:Academic publishing]]