case_images: PMC5629243_01
case_images: Number of citations per year:Qiang et al. article
case_images: 11192_2017_2242_Fig10_HTML.jpg
case_images: PMC5629243_01_11192_2017_2242_Fig10_HTML.jpg
case_images: Fig10
case_images: Despite of the problematic issues with the study, it has been cited and still receives citations in 2016 (see Fig. 10).
case_images: Number of citations per year:Ji et al. article
case_images: 11192_2017_2242_Fig11_HTML.jpg
case_images: PMC5629243_01_11192_2017_2242_Fig11_HTML.jpg
case_images: Fig11
case_images: This article received 37 citations over the years (See Fig. 11), while the original paper (Li et al.) has received 38 citations.
case_images: Number of citations per year:Zhang et al. paper
case_images: 11192_2017_2242_Fig12_HTML.jpg
case_images: PMC5629243_01_11192_2017_2242_Fig12_HTML.jpg
case_images: Fig12
case_images: However, this article is seen to be cited recently (see Fig. 12) despite of the profound reasons which led to its retraction.
case_images: Number of citations per year:Nanjawade et al. article
case_images: 11192_2017_2242_Fig13_HTML.jpg
case_images: PMC5629243_01_11192_2017_2242_Fig13_HTML.jpg
case_images: Fig13
case_images: Yet, as can be seen in Fig. 13 the article was highly cited well after a retraction notice was issued.
case_images: Number of citations per year:Yamagata et al. article
case_images: 11192_2017_2242_Fig14_HTML.jpg
case_images: PMC5629243_01_11192_2017_2242_Fig14_HTML.jpg
case_images: Fig14
case_images: Even though the article was retracted in 2014 it is still cited through 2016 (see Fig. 14).
case_images: Number of citations per year:Vaidvanathan et al. article
case_images: 11192_2017_2242_Fig15_HTML.jpg
case_images: PMC5629243_01_11192_2017_2242_Fig15_HTML.jpg
case_images: Fig15
case_images: Note that 118 out of the 125 citations the paper received until March 2016 are post-retraction citations (see Fig. 15). 