OpenCitations Meta is a new database for open bibliographic metadata of scholarly publications involved in the citations indexed by the OpenCitations infrastructure, adhering to Open Science principles and published under a CC0 license to promote maximum reuse. It presently incorporates bibliographic metadata for publications recorded in Crossref, DataCite, and PubMed, making it the largest bibliographic metadata source using Semantic Web technologies. It assigns new globally persistent identifiers (PIDs), known as OpenCitations Meta Identifiers (OMIDs) to all bibliographic resources, enabling it both to disambiguate publications described using different external PIDS (e.g., a DOI in Crossref and a PMID in PubMed) and to handle citations involving publications lacking external PIDs. By hosting bibliographic metadata internally, OpenCitations Meta eliminates its former reliance on API calls to external resources and thus enhances performance in response to user queries. Its automated data curation, following the OpenCitations Data Model, includes deduplication, error correction, metadata enrichment, and full provenance tracking, ensuring transparency and traceability of data and bolstering confidence in data integrity, a feature unparalleled in other bibliographic databases. Its commitment to Semantic Web standards ensures superior interoperability compared to other machine-readable formats, with availability via a SPARQL endpoint, REST APIs, and data dumps.

In this article, we show and discuss the results of a quantitative and qualitative analysis of open citations of retracted publications in the humanities domain. Our study was conducted by selecting retracted papers in the humanities domain and marking their main characteristics (e.g., retraction reason). Then, we gathered the citing entities and annotated their basic metadata (e.g., title, venue, subject) and the characteristics of their in-text citations (e.g., intent, sentiment). Using these data, we performed a quantitative and qualitative study of retractions in the humanities, presenting descriptive statistics and a topic modeling analysis of the citing entities’ abstracts and the in-text citation contexts. As part of our main findings, we noticed that there was no drop in the overall number of citations after the year of retraction, with few entities that have either mentioned the retraction or expressed a negative sentiment toward the cited publication. In addition, on several occasions, we noticed a higher concern/awareness by citing entities belonging to the health sciences domain about citing a retracted publication, compared with the humanities and social science domains. Philosophy, arts, and history are the humanities areas that showed higher concern toward the retraction.