Retractions in arts and humanities: an analysis of the retraction notices.
The aim of this work is to understand the retraction phenomenon in the arts and humanities domain through an analysis of the retraction notices—formal documents stating and describing the retraction of a particular publication. The retractions and the corresponding notices are identified using the d...
| Publicado en: | Digital Scholarship in the Humanities Vol. 39; no. 2; pp. 548 - 556 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Oxford University Press / USA
Jun2024
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=177947249&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 177947249 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 2055768X JEO9 jtl: Digital Scholarship in the Humanities issn: 2055768X maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Jun2024 vid: 39 iid: 2 pid: 622 pub: Oxford University Press / USA artinfo: ui: 177947249 10.1093/llc/fqad093 ppf: 548 ppct: 8 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 882KB tig: atl: Retractions in arts and humanities: an analysis of the retraction notices. aug: au: Heibi, Ivan Peroni, Silvio affil: Research Centre for Open Scholarly Metadata, Department of Classical Philology and Italian Studies, University of Bologna , Bologna 40126, Italy Digital Humanities Advanced Research Centre (/DH.arc), Department of Classical Philology and Italian Studies, University of Bologna , Bologna 40126, Italy su: Content analysis Ambiguity sug: subj: Content analysis Ambiguity keyword: arts and humanities retraction notices retractions topic modelling ab: The aim of this work is to understand the retraction phenomenon in the arts and humanities domain through an analysis of the retraction notices—formal documents stating and describing the retraction of a particular publication. The retractions and the corresponding notices are identified using the data provided by Retraction Watch. Our methodology for the analysis combines a metadata analysis and a content analysis (mainly performed using a topic modelling process) of the retraction notices. Considering 343 cases of retraction, we found that many retraction notices are neither identifiable nor findable. In addition, these were not always separated from the original papers, introducing ambiguity in understanding how these notices were perceived by the community (i.e. cited). Also, we noticed that there is no systematic way to write a retraction notice. Indeed, some retraction notices presented a complete discussion of the reasons for retraction, while others tended to be more direct and succinct. We have also reported many notices having similar text while addressing different retractions. We think a further study with a larger collection should be done using the same methodology to confirm and investigate our findings further. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: © 2019 EADH: The European Association for Digital Humanities. item: Digital Scholarship in the Humanities holder: Oxford University Press / USA dt: @attributes: year: 2024 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|