Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 1 Summary of counts, see main text for information

From: Propagation of errors in citation networks: a study involving the entire citation network of a widely cited paper published in, and later retracted from, the journal Nature

  2014 2015
Citation networks   
# articles 187 1626
# citation relations 277 2457
Cited or not   
# articles not (yet) cited 118 (63 %) 1037 (64 %)
# cited articles 69 (37 %) 589 (36 %)
Articles that directly cite the Narayan paper   
# articles that directly cite the Narayan 37 57
paper   
Of which are Reviews 18 28
Of which are Original contributions 17 26
Where:   
# citations in the Introduction 12 14
# citations in the Materials & 1 1
Methods section   
# citations in the Results 1 3
# citations in the Discussion 9 17
Overlap counts   
# directly citing papers in overlap 7 10
# indirectly citing papers in overlap 1 10
  1. The number of Reviews and the number of Original contributions do not add up to the total number of articles that directly cite the Narayan paper. In 2014, apart from Reviews and Original contributions we have the paper that prompted the retraction [29] and a note; in 2015, we have one further note. Also, the retraction itself is left out of all counts. The numbers of citations in the various sections of Original contributions add up to totals larger than the number of Original contributions because in some Original contributions there are several citations. The overlap counts refer to the overlap of the 2014 and 2015 citing collections, on the one hand, and the July 2015 search result on the search term “sirt* AND necro*” limited to articles published after 2011