Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T16:54:41.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Dynamics of Retraction in Epistemic Networks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Travis LaCroix ,
Anders Geil  and
Cailin O’Connor
Travis LaCroix
Affiliation:
To contact the authors, please write to: Travis LaCroix (corresponding author), Mila—Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute, Department d’informatique et de recherche operationnelle, Universite de Montreal; e-mail: [email protected]. Anders Geil, Department of Computer Science, Columbia University; e-mail: [email protected]. Cailin O’Connor, Department of Logic and Philosophy of Science, University of California, Irvine; e-mail: [email protected].
Anders Geil
Affiliation:
To contact the authors, please write to: Travis LaCroix (corresponding author), Mila—Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute, Department d’informatique et de recherche operationnelle, Universite de Montreal; e-mail: [email protected]. Anders Geil, Department of Computer Science, Columbia University; e-mail: [email protected]. Cailin O’Connor, Department of Logic and Philosophy of Science, University of California, Irvine; e-mail: [email protected].
Cailin O’Connor
Affiliation:
To contact the authors, please write to: Travis LaCroix (corresponding author), Mila—Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute, Department d’informatique et de recherche operationnelle, Universite de Montreal; e-mail: [email protected]. Anders Geil, Department of Computer Science, Columbia University; e-mail: [email protected]. Cailin O’Connor, Department of Logic and Philosophy of Science, University of California, Irvine; e-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sometimes retracted or refuted scientific information is used and propagated long after it is understood to be misleading. Likewise, retracted news items may spread and persist, despite being publicly established as false. In this article, we explore the dynamics of retraction using agent-based models of epistemic networks, to see why false beliefs might persist despite retraction. We find that, often, those who received false information simply fail to receive retractions because of social dynamics. Surprisingly, delaying retraction can increase its impact. Further, retractions are most successful when issued by the original source of misinformation, rather than a separate source.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 88 , Issue 3 , July 2021 , pp. 415 - 438
Copyright
Copyright 2021 by the Philosophy of Science Association. All rights reserved.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

This material is based on work supported by National Science Foundation grants 1535139 and 1922424. Many thanks for their support. Thanks to the UC Irvine Social Dynamics group, members of the Department of Philosophy at Australian National University, and the anonymous referees for feedback on this work.

References

Albert, R., and Barabási, A.-L.. 2002. “Statistical Mechanics of Complex Networks.” Reviews of Modern Physics 74 (1): 47–97..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barabási, A.-L., and Albert, R.. 1999. “Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks.” Science 286 (5439): 509–12..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barabási, A.-L., Jeong, H., Néda, Z., Ravasz, E., Schubert, A., and Vicsek, T.. 2002. “Evolution of the Social Network of Scientific Collaborations.” Physica A 311 (3–4): 590–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bornemann-Cimenti, H., Szilagyi, I. S., and Sandner-Kiesling, A.. 2016. “Perpetuation of Retracted Publications Using the Example of the Scott S. Reuben Case: Incidences, Reasons and Possible Improvements.” Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (4): 1063–72..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bright, L. K. 2017. “Decision Theoretic Model of the Productivity Gap.” Erkenntnis 82 (2): 421–42..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broadus, R. N. 1983. “An Investigation of the Validity of Bibliographic Citations.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 34 (2): 132–35..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broido, A., and Clauset, A.. 2019. “Scale-Free Networks Are Rare.” Nature Communications 10 (4): 1017.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buckwalter, J. A., Tolo, V. T., and O’Keefe, R. J.. 2015. “How Do You Know It Is True? Integrity in Research and Publications: AOA Critical Issues.” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery: American Volume 97 (1): e2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budd, J. M., Sievert, M., and Schultz, T. R.. 1998. “Phenomena of Retraction: Reasons for Retraction and Citations to the Publications.” JAMA 280 (3): 296–97..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clauset, A., Shalizi, C. R., and Newman, M. E. J.. 2007. “Power-Law Distributions in Empirical Data.” SIAM Review 51 (4): 661–703..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cokol, M., Ozbay, F., and Rodriguez-Esteban, R.. 2008. “Retraction Rates Are on the Rise.” EMBO Reports 9 (1): 2–2..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cor, K., and Sood, G.. 2021. “Propagation of Error: Approving Citations to Problematic Research.” Unpublished manuscript. .Google Scholar
Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., and Casadevall, A.. 2012. “Misconduct Accounts for the Majority of Retracted Scientific Publications.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109 (42): 17028–33..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldman, A., and O’Connor, C.. 2019. “Social Epistemology.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Zalta, Edward N.. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. .Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1975. “Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3, Speech Acts, ed. Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L., 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grieneisen, M. L., and Zhang, M.. 2012. “A Comprehensive Survey of Retracted Articles from the Scholarly Literature.” PloS One 7 (10): e44118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayhoe, M., Alajaji, F., and Gharesifard, B.. 2018. “A Polya Contagion Model for Networks.” IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems 5 (4): 1998–2010..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heesen, R. 2018. “Why the Reward Structure of Science Makes Reproducibility Problems Inevitable.” Journal of Philosophy 115 (12): 661–74..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Himelboim, I., Sweetser, K. D., Tinkham, S. F., Cameron, K., Danelo, M., and West, K.. 2016. “Valence-Based Homophily on Twitter: Network Analysis of Emotions and Political Talk in the 2012 Presidential Election.” New Media and Society 18 (7): 1382–400..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holman, B., and Bruner, J. P.. 2015. “The Problem of Intransigently Biased Agents.” Philosophy of Science 82 (5): 956–68..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holman, B., and Bruner, J. P.. 2017. “Experimentation by Industrial Selection.” Philosophy of Science 84 (5): 1008–19..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hui, C., Magdon-Ismail, M., Goldberg, M., and Wallace, W. A.. 2011. “Effectiveness of Information Retraction.” In 2011 IEEE Network Science Workshop, 133–37. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.Google Scholar
Kazil, J., et al. 2014. “Mesa: Agent-Based Modeling in Python 3+.” .Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. 1990. “The Division of Cognitive Labor.” Journal of Philosophy 87 (1): 5–22..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, D. A., and Nail, P. R.. 1993. “Contagion: A Theoretical and Empirical Review and Reconceptualization.” Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs 119:233–84.Google ScholarPubMed
Lewandowsky, S., Pilditch, T. D., Madsen, J. K., Oreskes, N., and Risbey, J. S.. 2019. “Influence and Seepage: An Evidence-Resistant Minority Can Affect Public Opinion and Scientific Belief Formation.” Cognition 188:124–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Madlock-Brown, C. R., and Eichmann, D.. 2015. “The (Lack of) Impact of Retraction on Citation Networks.” Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (1): 127–37..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McWilliams, J. 2013. “Journalism Is Never Perfect: The Politics of Story Corrections and Retractions.” Pacific Standard, December 20. .Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. 1973. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Milojević, S. 2010. “Modes of Collaboration in Modern Science: Beyond Power Laws and Preferential Attachment.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 61 (7): 1410–23..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neale, A. V., Dailey, R. K., and Abrams, J.. 2010. “Analysis of Citations to Biomedical Articles Affected by Scientific Misconduct.” Science and Engineering Ethics 16 (2): 251–61..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Connor, C., and Weatherall, J. O.. 2019. The Misinformation Age: How False Beliefs Spread. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeifer, M. P., and Snodgrass, G. L.. 1990. “The Continued Use of Retracted, Invalid Scientific Literature.” JAMA 263 (10): 1420–23..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rogers, E. M. 2012. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Shafer, S. L. 2015. “Tattered Threads.” Anesthesia and Analgesia 108 (5): 1361–63..Google Scholar
Steen, R. G. 2011. “Retractions in the Scientific Literature: Is the Incidence of Research Fraud Increasing?” Journal of Medical Ethics 37 (4): 249–53..Google ScholarPubMed
Steen, R. G., Casadevall, A., and Fang, F. C.. 2013. “Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?” PloS One 8 (7): e68397.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steyvers, M., and Tenenbaum, J. B.. 2005. “The Large-Scale Structure of Semantic Networks: Statistical Analyses and a Model of Semantic Growth.” Cognitive Science 29 (1): 41–78..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Telesford, Q. K., Joyce, K. E., Hayasaka, S., Burdette, J. H., and Laurienti, P. J.. 2011. “The Ubiquity of Small-World Networks.” Brain Connectivity 1 (5): 367–75..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Unger, K., and Couzin, J.. 2006. “Even Retracted Papers Endure.” Science 312 (5770): 40–41..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
US Attorney’s Office. 2010. “Anesthesiologist Sentenced on Health Care Fraud Charge.” US Attorney’s Office, Massachusetts, June 24. .Google Scholar
van der Vet, P. E., and Nijveen, H.. 2016. “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.” Research Integrity and Peer Review 1:3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wager, E., and Williams, P.. 2011. “Why and How Do Journals Retract Articles? An Analysis of Medline Retractions, 1988–2008.” Journal of Medical Ethics 37 (9): 567–70..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watts, D. J., and Strogatz, S. H.. 1998. “Collective Dynamics of ‘Small-World’ Networks.” Nature 393:440–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weatherall, J. O., O’Connor, C., and Bruner, J.. 2020. “How to Beat Science and Influence People.” British Journal for Philosophy of Science 71 (4): 1157–86..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zollman, K. J. 2013. “Network Epistemology: Communication in Epistemic Communities.” Philosophy Compass 8 (1): 15–27..CrossRefGoogle Scholar