Retracted Publications in Mental Health Literature: Discovery across Bibliographic Platforms

INTRODUCTION Retractions are a mechanism by which science corrects itself, withdrawing statements or claims that have proven to be erroneous. However, this requires that such corrections be displayed clearly and consistently. This paper considers how retracted publications in the mental health liter...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Amy Riegelman, Caitlin Bakker
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Iowa State University Digital Press 2018-01-01
Series:Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.iastatedigitalpress.com/jlsc/article/id/12798/
_version_ 1827292899775086592
author Amy Riegelman
Caitlin Bakker
author_facet Amy Riegelman
Caitlin Bakker
author_sort Amy Riegelman
collection DOAJ
description INTRODUCTION Retractions are a mechanism by which science corrects itself, withdrawing statements or claims that have proven to be erroneous. However, this requires that such corrections be displayed clearly and consistently. This paper considers how retracted publications in the mental health literature are represented across different platforms. METHODS Using Retraction Watch, we identified 144 retracted articles in the mental health field. We looked across seven platforms to determine the consistency and clarity of the retracted status of these publications. RESULTS Of the 812 records for retracted publications, 40.0% (n=325) did not indicate that the paper had been retracted. Of available PDFs, 26.3% (53/201) did not indicate that the paper had been retracted. Of the 144 articles studied, only 10 were represented as being retracted across all resources through which they were available. DISCUSSION Retracted publications in this sample were inconsistently represented across library resources. While technical solutions, such as Crossmark by Crossref, may help mitigate these challenges, the inconsistent display of retractions has implications for education and outreach. CONCLUSION Our study found that the retractions in our sample were not clearly and consistently represented across sources. Libraries, which provide access to and training in these resources, have a responsibility to raise awareness of these inconsistencies and to advocate for more timely and accurate metadata.
first_indexed 2024-04-24T13:15:49Z
format Article
id doaj.art-3ab250837d7d4f5480f7dd6debef9fa9
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2162-3309
language English
last_indexed 2024-04-24T13:15:49Z
publishDate 2018-01-01
publisher Iowa State University Digital Press
record_format Article
series Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication
spelling doaj.art-3ab250837d7d4f5480f7dd6debef9fa92024-04-04T17:33:17ZengIowa State University Digital PressJournal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication2162-33092018-01-016110.7710/2162-3309.2199Retracted Publications in Mental Health Literature: Discovery across Bibliographic PlatformsAmy Riegelman0Caitlin Bakker1https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4154-8382University Of MinnesotaUniversity of ReginaINTRODUCTION Retractions are a mechanism by which science corrects itself, withdrawing statements or claims that have proven to be erroneous. However, this requires that such corrections be displayed clearly and consistently. This paper considers how retracted publications in the mental health literature are represented across different platforms. METHODS Using Retraction Watch, we identified 144 retracted articles in the mental health field. We looked across seven platforms to determine the consistency and clarity of the retracted status of these publications. RESULTS Of the 812 records for retracted publications, 40.0% (n=325) did not indicate that the paper had been retracted. Of available PDFs, 26.3% (53/201) did not indicate that the paper had been retracted. Of the 144 articles studied, only 10 were represented as being retracted across all resources through which they were available. DISCUSSION Retracted publications in this sample were inconsistently represented across library resources. While technical solutions, such as Crossmark by Crossref, may help mitigate these challenges, the inconsistent display of retractions has implications for education and outreach. CONCLUSION Our study found that the retractions in our sample were not clearly and consistently represented across sources. Libraries, which provide access to and training in these resources, have a responsibility to raise awareness of these inconsistencies and to advocate for more timely and accurate metadata.https://www.iastatedigitalpress.com/jlsc/article/id/12798/retraction noticeselectronic publishingpublication ethicsmental health literatureresearch misconduct
spellingShingle Amy Riegelman
Caitlin Bakker
Retracted Publications in Mental Health Literature: Discovery across Bibliographic Platforms
Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication
retraction notices
electronic publishing
publication ethics
mental health literature
research misconduct
title Retracted Publications in Mental Health Literature: Discovery across Bibliographic Platforms
title_full Retracted Publications in Mental Health Literature: Discovery across Bibliographic Platforms
title_fullStr Retracted Publications in Mental Health Literature: Discovery across Bibliographic Platforms
title_full_unstemmed Retracted Publications in Mental Health Literature: Discovery across Bibliographic Platforms
title_short Retracted Publications in Mental Health Literature: Discovery across Bibliographic Platforms
title_sort retracted publications in mental health literature discovery across bibliographic platforms
topic retraction notices
electronic publishing
publication ethics
mental health literature
research misconduct
url https://www.iastatedigitalpress.com/jlsc/article/id/12798/
work_keys_str_mv AT amyriegelman retractedpublicationsinmentalhealthliteraturediscoveryacrossbibliographicplatforms
AT caitlinbakker retractedpublicationsinmentalhealthliteraturediscoveryacrossbibliographicplatforms