Contacts Investigating Scientific Misinformation Originating from Retracted Publications and Their Perception Juliane Stiller1, Senta Terner2, Violeta Trkulja1 1Grenzenlos Digital e. V., 2Uppsala University 86th Annual Meeting of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 27-31 October 2023, London, UK 1 Dr. Juliane Stiller juliane@grenzenlos-digital.org @stillinsky@mastodon.social The scientific community is built on the principles of transparency and accountability, where published research is subject to scrutiny and open to re-evaluation. One of the mechanisms by which the scientific record is corrected is through retractions (Wray & Anderson, 2018), which signal to the scientific community that a published article contains significant flaws or errors and results cannot be relied upon (COPE, 2019). As retracted papers are often related to erroneous research, we use these to learn more about the relationship between scientific publication and false information and the spread of false information in the media. We distinguish between four different causes of scientific misinformation: 1) information that originally met scientific criteria but is now considered outdated, 2) information produced by scientists either intentionally or due to unintentional errors, 3) information that appears scientific but lacks a scientific basis (pseudoscience), and 4) information that meets scientific criteria but is distorted or falsified in its reception. Introduction 2 3 1 2 3 Different Media Perceptions Use statement of original paper to strengthen claim that masks do not help. Use retraction to strengthen claims that masks do help as paper stating otherwise was retracted. Use statement of original paper to say that more measure than masks are needed. “Smokers are less likely to get Covid” “Masks do not help” Original study is referenced to promote conspiracy myths. Use the study as evidence that the COVID-19 vaccine is dangerous, connected with the call for not getting vaccinated. Retraction is used as a proof that people get silenced if they are critical about vaccinations. Dr. Violeta Trkulja violeta@grenzenlos-digital.org @viokeka@mastodon.social Use Case Analysis Different Contexts Shape the Message DOI publication: 10.7326/M20-1342 Publication date: 06.04.2020 DOI retraction: 10.7326/L20-0745 Retraction date: 07.07.2020 Authors’ Intention are Questioned Communities with Closed World Views • Original Paper is used to back-up different claims • Retraction is used as evidence that claims opposing the claim made in retracted paper are true • Strong conclusion can be a red flag for sensitive topics DOI publication: 10.1183/13993003.02144-2020 Publication date: 07.06.2020 DOI retraction: 10.1183/13993003.02144-2020 Retraction date: 04.03.2021 Discussion The three identified use cases demonstrate the dissemination of scientific misinformation in the public domain. Our investigation specifically focused on scientific misinformation originating from article retractions and how these retractions are perceived and discussed in news outlet articles. We identified four key factors that influence the portrayal of retracted articles and the information presented in these news outlets: 1) the Object of Reception determines whether the article itself or its retraction is discussed within the news outlets, 2) the Characteristics of News Articles determines the depth and extent to which information about the retraction is integrated into the news articles, 3) the Community of Reception pertains to the intended readership or audience of the news article, and 4) the Characteristics of the Publication deals with the potential motives or intentions of the authors behind the publication. Our investigation provides a foundation for further analysis and advances our understanding of how dubious scientific publications are perceived and how scientific misinformation spreads. ALLEA (Eds.). (2021). Fact or Fake? Tackling Science Disinformation (ALLEA