Moradi, Shima2025-09-242025-09-242017Budd, J. M., Sievert, M., & Schultz, T. R. (1998). Phenomena of retraction: reasons for retraction and citations to the publications. JAMA, 280(3), 296-297. Buttliere, B., & Buder, J. (2017). Personalizing papers using Altmetrics: comparing paper ‘Quality’or ‘Impact’to person ‘Intelligence’or ‘Personality’. Scientometrics, 111(1), 219-239. Couzin-Frankel, J. (2013). Shaking up science. Science, 339, 386-389. Costas, R., Zahedi, Z., & Wouters, P. (2015). Do “altmetrics” correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(10), 2003-2019. Enago Academy. (2016). 10 Types of Scientific Misconduct. Retrieve time on 2017/01/17 from https://www.enago.com/academy/10-types-of-scientific-misconduct/ Fanelli, D. (2013). Redefine misconduct as distorted reporting. Nature, 494, 149. Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(42), 17028-17033. Faulkes, Z (2014). The vacuum shouts back: postpublication peer review on social media. Neuron, 82(2), 258-260. Furman, J. L., Jensen, K., & Murray, F. (2012). Governing knowledge in the scientific community: Exploring the role of retractions in biomedicine. Research Policy, 41(2), 276-290. Gross, C. (2016). Scientific misconduct. Annual review of psychology, 67, 693-711. Hammarfelt, B. (2014). Using altmetrics for assessing research impact in the humanities. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1419-1430. Haustein, S., Peters, I., Bar-Ilan, J., Priem, J., Shema, H., & Terliesner, J. (2014). Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric community. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1145-1163. Lin, J., & Fenner, M. (2013). Altmetrics in evolution: Defining and redefining the ontology of article-level metrics. Information Standards Quarterly, 25(2), 20-26. Neylon, C., & Wu, S. (2009). Article-level metrics and the evolution of scientific impact. PLoS Biol, 7(11), e1000242. Noyori, R., & Richmond, J. P. (2013). Ethical conduct in chemical research and publishing. Advanced Synthesis & Catalysis, 355(1), 3-9 Piwowar, H. (2013). Altmetrics: Value all research products. Nature, 493(7431), 159-159. Pfeifer, M. P., & Snodgrass, G. L. (1990). The continued use of retracted, invalid scientific literature. JAMA, 263(10), 1420-1423. Sugawara, Y., Tanimoto, T., Miyagawa, S., Murakami, M., Tsuya, A., Tanaka, A., & Narimatsu, H. (2017). Scientific misconduct and social media: role of twitter in the stimulus triggered acquisition of pluripotency cells scandal. Journal of medical Internet research, 19(2). Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services. PloS one, 8(5), e64841. Tijdink, J. K., Verbeke, R., & Smulders, Y. M. (2014). Publication pressure and scientific misconduct in medical scientists. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 9(5), 64-71. Trueger, N. S., Thoma, B., Hsu, C. H., Sullivan, D., Peters, L., & Lin, M. (2015). The Altmetric Score: a new measure for article-level dissemination and impact. Annals of emergency medicine. Van Raan, A. (1997). Scientometrics: State-of-the-art. Scientometrics, 38(1), 205-218. Wager, Elizabeth, Barbour, Virginia, Steven Yentis and Kleinert, S. (2009). COPE's retraction guidelines. The Lancet, 374(9705), 1876-1877. Ziliak, S. T. (2016). Statistical significance and scientific misconduct: improving the style of the published research paper. Review of Social economy, 74(1), 83-97.https://repository.ifla.org/handle/20.500.14598/5925Retracted articles are those papers with any kind of scientific misconducting rejected by publisher after publication date. This research is about retraction in 354 Biochemistry & Molecular Biology papers indexed in Web of science, to see if their traditional impacts has any relation with their modern. Using both scientometrics and altmetrics approaches, their citations and mentions is studied for 185 articles as the research sample. Results shows a growth in the retraction rate for this field, besides 67 citations and 263 mentions were calculated. There were no significant correlation between the traditional and modern impact of these articles; however, there were a correlation between traditional impact and Publication date as well as the modern impact and Publication date in these articles.engAttribution 4.0 Internationalhttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Articlehttp://www.professionalabstracts.com/iflawlic2017/iplanner/#/gridopen accessAltmetricscitationmentionretractionretracted publicationBiochemistry & Molecular Biology