Search

Context: The retraction of research papers, for whatever reason, is a growing phenomenon. However, although retracted paper information is publicly available via publishers, it is somewhat distributed and inconsistent. Objective: The aim is to assess: (i) the extent and nature of retracted research in Computer Science (CS) (ii) the post-retraction citation behaviour of retracted works and (iii) the potential impact upon systematic reviews and mapping studies. Method: We analyse the Retraction Watch database and take citation information from the Web of Science and Google scholar. Results: We find that of the 33,955 entries in the Retraction watch database (16 May 2022), 2,816 are classified as CS, i.e., ≈ 8%. For CS, 56% of retracted papers provide little or no information as to the reasons. This contrasts with 26% for other disciplines. There is also some disparity between different publishers, a tendency for multiple versions of a retracted paper to be available beyond the Version of Record (VoR), and for new citations long after a paper is officially retracted (median = 3; maximum = 18). Systematic reviews are also impacted with ≈ 30% of the retracted papers having one or more citations from a review. Conclusions: Unfortunately, retraction seems to be a sufficiently common outcome for a scientific paper that we as a research community need to take it more seriously, e.g., standardising procedures and taxonomies across publishers and the provision of appropriate research tools. Finally, we recommend particular caution when undertaking secondary analyses and meta-analyses which are at risk of becoming contaminated by these problem primary studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper aims to investigate the differences between conference papers and journal papers in the field of computer science based on Bayesian network. This paper investigated the differences between conference papers and journal papers in the field of computer science based on Bayesian network, a knowledge-representative framework that can model relationships among all variables in the network. We defined the variables required for Bayesian networks modeling, calculated the values of each variable based Aminer dataset (a literature data set in the field of computer science), learned the Bayesian network and derived some findings based on network inference. The study found that conferences are more attractive to senior scholars, the academic impact of conference papers is slightly higher than journal papers, and it is uncertain whether conference papers are more innovative than journal papers. The study was limited to the field of computer science and employed Aminer dataset as the sample. Further studies involving more diverse datasets and different fields could provide a more complete picture of the matter. By demonstrating that Bayesian networks can effectively analyze issues in Scientometrics, the study offers valuable insights that may enhance researchers' understanding of the differences between journal and conference in computer science. Academic conferences play a crucial role in facilitating scholarly exchange and knowledge dissemination within the field of computer science. Several studies have been conducted to examine the distinctions between conference papers and journal papers in terms of various factors, such as authors, citations, h-index and others. Those studies were carried out from different (independent) perspectives, lacking a systematic examination of the connections and interactions between multiple perspectives. This paper supplements this deficiency based on Bayesian network modeling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]