English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In this article, we show the results of a quantitative and qualitativeanalysis of open citations on a popular and highly cited retracted paper:"Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasivedevelopmental disorder in children" by Wakefield et al., published in 1998. Themain purpose of our study is to understand the behavior of the publicationsciting retracted articles and the characteristics of the citations theretracted articles accumulated over time. Our analysis is based on amethodology which illustrates how we gathered the data, extracted the topics ofthe citing articles, and visualized the results. The data and services used areall open and free to foster the reproducibility of the analysis. The outcomesconcerned the analysis of the entities citing Wakefield et al.'s article andtheir related in-text citations. We observed a constant increasing number ofcitations in the last 20 years, accompanied with a constant increment in thepercentage of those acknowledging its retraction. Citing articles have startedeither discussing or dealing with the retraction of Wakefield et al.'s articleeven before its full retraction, happened in 2010. Articles in the socialsciences domain citing the Wakefield et al.'s one were among those that havemostly discussed its retraction. In addition, when observing the in-textcitations, we noticed that a large part of the citations received by Wakefieldet al.'s article has focused on general discussions without recalling strictlymedical details, especially after the full retraction. Medical studies did nothesitate in acknowledging the retraction and often provided strong negativestatements on it.

A qualitative and quantitative analysis of open citations to retracted articles: the Wakefield et al.'s case