Science of retracted science: a citation analysis of the arts and humanities domain

In the scholarly publishing domain, a retraction is raised when a specific publication is considered erroneous by the venue in which it appeared after it was published. The aim of this work is uncovering new insights and learn new important information to help us understand the retraction phenomenon in the arts and humanities domain. Our investigation is based on a methodology defined using quantitative and qualitative measures derived from previous studies in the transdisciplinary research field of “science of science” (SciSci). The designed methodology takes into account a general case of retraction and applies a citation analysis based on five phases. Citations to retracted publications (before and after their retraction) are gathered and characterized with a set of attributes, including general metadata and information extracted from citing entities’ full text. The annotated characteristics are further considered for a statistical and a textual analysis (i.e., a topic modeling analysis). The contribution of this thesis is grounded by addressing the following research questions: (RQ1) How did scholarly research cite retracted humanities publications before and after their retraction? (RQ2) Did all the humanities areas behave similarly concerning the retraction phenomenon? (RQ3) What are the main differences and similarities in the retraction dynamics between the humanities domain and the STEM disciplines? RQ1 and RQ2 are addressed by tuning and applying the methodology on the analysis of the retracted publications in the humanities domain. RQ3 is addressed on two levels, i.e., considering and comparing: (L1) the outcomes of the past studies on the retraction in STEM, and (L2) the results obtained from an analysis of a retraction case in STEM using the defined methodology.