Skip to main content

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