Warning: fopen(/home/virtual/kcse/journal/upload/ip_log/ip_log_2024-04.txt): failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 88 Warning: fwrite() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 89 Characteristics of retracted articles based on retraction data from online sources through February 2019
Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Science Editing : Science Editing



Page Path
HOME > Sci Ed > Volume 7(1); 2020 > Article
Original Article
Characteristics of retracted articles based on retraction data from online sources through February 2019
Quan-Hoang Vuong1,2orcid, Viet-Phuong La2orcid, Manh-Tung Ho2,3orcid, Thu-Trang Vuong4orcid, Manh-Toan Ho2orcid
Science Editing 2020;7(1):34-44.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.187
Published online: February 20, 2020

1Scientific Council on Basic Research in the Social Sciences and Humanities, National Foundation for Science and Technology Development (NAFOSTED), Hanoi, Vietnam

2Centre for Interdisciplinary Social Research, Phenikaa University, Hanoi, Vietnam

3Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University, Beppu, Japan

4Sciences Po Paris, Paris, France

Correspondence to Manh-Toan Ho toan.homanh@phenikaa-uni.edu.vn
• Received: August 26, 2019   • Accepted: October 21, 2019

Copyright © 2020 Korean Council of Science Editors

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

  • 274 Download
  • 18 Web of Science
  • 17 Crossref
  • 21 Scopus
  • Purpose
    Although retractions are commonly considered to be negative, the fact remains that they play a positive role in the academic community. For instance, retractions help scientific enterprise perform its self-correcting function and provide lessons for future researchers; furthermore, they represent the fulfillment of social responsibilities, and they enable scientific communities to offer better monitoring services to keep problematic studies in check. This study aims to provide a thorough overview of the practice of retraction in scientific publishing from the first incident to the present.
  • Methods
    We built a database using SQL Server 2016 and homemade artificial intelligence tools to extract and classify data sources including RetractionWatch, official publishers’ archives, and online communities into ready-to-analyze groups and to scan them for new data. After data cleaning, a dataset of 18,603 retractions from 1,753 (when the first retracted paper was published) to February 2019, covering 127 research fields, was established.
  • Results
    Notable retraction events include the rise in retracted articles starting in 1999 and the unusual number of retractions in 2010. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Elsevier, and Springer account for nearly 60% of all retracted papers globally, with Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers contributing the most retractions, even though it is not the organization that publishes the most journals. Finally, reasons for retraction are diverse but the most common is “fake peer review”.
  • Conclusion
    This study suggests that the frequency of retraction has boomed in the past 20 years, and it underscores the importance of understanding and learning from the practice of retracting scientific articles.
Background: Retraction is described by the Committee on Publication Ethics as a mechanism for correcting the literature and alerting readers to publications that contain serious flaws or erroneous data to the extent that their findings and conclu-sions cannot be relied upon [1]. However, most readers and scientists regard retraction as an unfortunate negative outcome of the scientific enterprise. Retraction is seen as a source of embarrassment for all involved [2]. This is partially due to the public perceptions associated with the phenomenon: adverse consequences to the authors, wasted funds, wasted time and effort of the host institutions, and loss of the public’s trust when the reputation of science is tainted by fraud [3], to name just a few.
It is thought that retraction can be an opportunity for learning and improvement [4]. Future researchers can learn from the reasons behind retraction [5]. Publicly available retraction notices represent the fulfillment of the social responsibilities of journals and publishers [6]. Open review communities, such as PubPeer, can offer better monitoring services to keep problematic studies in check.
Specific goals: To better facilitate this truly powerful and positive function of retraction, a comprehensive database of retraction will be highly beneficial. Useful insights can be drawn from retraction data by asking questions. How old is the phenomenon? Are some specific publishers/journals more prone to retraction? Are retractions concentrated in certain fields? When did retractions begin to become more visible to the world? How long does it take for a journal to issue a retraction? Hence, by extracting insights from a homemade retraction database, of which the sources were RetractionWatch, official publishers’ archives, and online communities, we aimed to answer the above questions and provide suggestions for changes in scientific publishing. By doing so, we can make use of the wisdom of the retracted papers and avoid issues associated with retraction altogether in the future.
Ethics statement: No informed consent was required because this is a literature-based study.
Study design: This is a descriptive study that utilized database analysis.
Setting: A rise in scholarly publication retractions has been seen in recent years, according to sources of information such as RetractionWatch and publishers’ retraction notices, which have fostered open discussions of retracted publications categorized by author, country, journal, subject, and type [7,8]. Yet, the large amounts of data stored in different systems may easily lead to omissions in results obtained by searching manually.
To bolster the value of retraction data, we embarked on a project to replicate data retrieved from online platforms, such as RetractionWatch, online journal archives, and online discussion communities. We scanned retractions that these sources may have missed, then stored the data in a database. We built this database using SQL Server 2016 (Microsoft, Seattle, WA, USA) and employed a web crawler tool to scan the data (see the file retractionCrawler (code).pdf at https://osf.io/7ahsn/ in [9] for the code for the web crawler tool).
Then, articles collected by the web crawler tool were cleaned and assessed for duplication using the DOI and PubMed databases.
Additionally, a fuzzy matching Levenshtein distance algorithm was used to find articles that had titles with a similarity of more than 90% (see file and validData (code).pdf at https://osf.io/c2zvj/ in [9] for the code for data validation). A code snippet is provided in Fig. 1.
After we eliminated 430 duplicate and incorrect records, the dataset contained 18,603 retractions, covering 127 research fields, from 1753 (when the first retracted paper was published) to February 2019. Raw data for the dataset of 18,603 retractions covering 127 research fields from 1753 until February 2019 are available in both .csv and .xlsx format in the files named retraction_18603.csv (https://osf.io/2kymw/) [10] and retraction_18603.xlsx (https://osf.io/a2w8h/), respectively [11]. The dataset, code examples, and all figures are stored and publicly available in the OSF system [9].
Statistical methods: Having organized the dataset, we then calculated descriptive statistics to present a clear overview of the practice of retraction in scientific publishing.
Retractions were found in 4,289 journals belonging to 753 publishers (or publishing organizations). From the analysis of data through February 2019, 18,603 retractions were found. In the past, this phenomenon was rare. Table 1 presents information regarding the 10 oldest retracted articles, with the oldest dating back to 1756. The next recorded retraction occurred in 1927; following that, retractions were typically recorded as taking place every several years. The first five articles on this list are not accessible because no digitized document is available.
The increasing number of retractions in recent years [12] may also reflect trends in time to retraction (the time from the publication of the article to the publication of the retraction note) [4]. We measured the time to retraction for the 10 articles with the longest time to retraction, and the longest interval before retraction was 80 years (Table 2). Four of the 10 articles listed below are not available online.
Although the first retraction was issued in 1756, retraction only began to become more common in 1999, as shown in Fig. 2, with 2010 being an anomaly.
The number of retractions and the numbers of publishers, journals, countries, and fields in which retraction decisions were made per year are reported in Table 3. Despite the increase in journals issuing retractions in recent years, the number of retractions per retracting journal has not increased. As shown in Table 3, in 2010, 4,867 papers were retracted by 401 journals or publications associated with 92 publishers. The authors of articles retracted that year came from 70 different countries, and their papers covered 118 research fields.
Among the 753 publishers with retracted papers, the highest number of papers belonged to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), with 6,763 retracted articles. Elsevier had the most journals that have had papers retracted: 877 journals covering 114 research fields. The IEEE, Elsevier, and Springer accounted for 56.81% (10,569 of 18,603) of all retracted papers globally. Basic data concerning the publishers with the most retractions are given in Table 4.
Fig. 3 illustrates the distribution of the number of retracted papers by 2017 journal impact factor (JIF). It indicates that 7,836 out of 18,603 papers were published in journals with a JIF, of which more than three-fourths were published in journals with a JIF of 5 or lower.
Data regarding retractions of papers in various fields are shown in Fig. 4.
China ranked first in the top 15 countries by number of retracted articles, as presented in Table 5.
A closer look at the top five countries showed a spurt in the retractions of articles by Chinese authors around 2010, as depicted in Figs. 5 and 6.
Key results: RetractionWatch is among the few databases tracking retractions exclusively on the global scale; hence, making the best use of this resource can greatly benefit the scientific community. Recognizing this fact, we have collected a comprehensive database on scientific retractions from 1753 to February 2019 using SQL Server 2016 and homemade artificial intelligence tools. This database enabled us to answer the questions posed in this paper. We found that although retraction is an old phenomenon, with the first retraction of a paper dating back to 1756 (Table 1); it became a common practice in 1999, and the most retractions were issued in 2010.
Moreover, the longest duration that a retracted paper stayed in the literature was 80 years (Table 2). Most notably, the IEEE, Elsevier, and Springer together accounted for nearly 60% of all retracted papers, with the IEEE accounting for the most. Of the reasons for retraction, “fake peer review” was the most common. Additionally, our database noted a sharp rise in the number of retracted papers from China (Table 5). These insights suggest that future studies can continue to explore various aspects of retractions.
Interpretation: This rise of retraction that began in 1999 (as shown in Fig. 2) is nearly consistent with the findings of Brembs et al., which concluded that the retraction rate of articles had remained stable since the 1970s and began to increase rapidly in the early 2000s. They also saw the creation and popularization of a website dedicated to monitoring retractions in 2010 [13]. However, this increase may be a sign that journal editors are becoming more skillful at identifying and removing flawed publications [14].
Diverging from previous results that held that journals with higher impact factors have a higher rate of retractions [15], our finding showed an non-significant correlation between JIF and the probability of article retraction (Fig. 3). This result is consistent with Singh et al. [3], who found a statistically non-significant relationship between the impact factor and the number of articles retracted. Different fields also had different numbers of retracted papers (Fig. 4). The majority of retractions were associated with business and technology, physical sciences, basic life science, and the health sciences. Meanwhile, the social sciences, humanities, environmental science, and publishing accounted for a small portion of all retractions. The relationships among retractions in different fields is also presented in Fig. 4. For instance, basic life sciences and health sciences had a significant number of shared retracted articles. In fields with few retractions, most of the retracted articles were shared with fields with high numbers of retractions.
The reasons for retraction can be diverse, and one paper is usually retracted for multiple reasons [4,7]. Since 2012, “fake peer review” has become a major reason, with 676 retractions for that reason during the last 7 years. About 30% (5,602) of retracted papers had undergone some investigation (Office of Research Integrity official investigation, investigation by a third party, investigation by a company/institution, or investigation by a journal/publisher) before being retracted. The findings of Qi et al. [8] also indicate that the number of retractions due to fake peer review differs among journals and countries; a majority (74.8%) of retracted papers were determined to be written by Chinese researchers.
This result may be due to China’s current national situation (Table 5 and Figs. 5, 6). Greater amounts of funding and awards for conducting scientific research make researchers more eager to publish; however, measures to enforce publishing ethics may not have caught up [8]. However, it is important to note that when considering the number of retractions per publication and the amount of research funding, respectively, Iran and Romania are the top countries [16].
Limitation: This article is not exempt from limitations. First, this study mainly employed descriptive statistics, which serve only to provide an overview and do not dive into any specific issue. Thus, future studies should make use of the resources provided by this report and focus on tackling specific problems, such as reasons for retraction or case studies of publishers or countries. Different statistical approaches, such as frequentist statistics [17] or Bayesian statistics [18], should be used. Analyses of these specific topics using different statistical methods will yield a more in-depth understanding of the practice of retraction. Second, due to paywalls, our artificial intelligence tools were unable to scan beyond basic information unless the retracted articles were open-access and available in HTML format. Similarly, this study used the 2017 JIF, also because of an accessibility issue. In the future, new technology and open-access policies of publishers may enable us to access more information.
With regard to lessons that can be learned from the above findings, what we present is only a macro-level view of the entire practice of retraction. The data, when organized and analyzed properly, will be much more useful for various stakeholders. As an example, the story of China and the drastic 2010 peak in retracted articles suggest that countries that are newcomers to the academic world should take care to avoid getting too caught up in productivity boosts, particularly in developing countries, where policy failure can be extremely consequential [19]. The provision of science financing and grants is, of course, a welcome action on the part of the government [20]; however, science policies ought not to incentivize researchers to sacrifice quality for quantity. In the face of the increase in the frequency of retractions across all fields in global academia, nurturing a culture of honesty and humility is just as important as output. Editors and publishers, as well as researchers and policy-makers, have something to learn from the story of retraction. Publishers can hold the key to mitigating the fierce competition on a playing field often leveled against emerging countries, thus supporting more sustainable practices in scientific publishing [21].
Conclusion: In essence, science is a continuous process of trial and error, and only by accepting the possibility of failure can a scientist make progress [22]. Thus, this study offers an overview of retraction offered from various perspectives, in which the data was examined with regard to articles, publishers, fields, and countries. This overview suggests that retraction has boomed in the past 20 years, and that the lessons that can be learned from retractions must be taken more seriously.

Conflict of Interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Data Availability

Raw data for the dataset of 18,603 retractions covering 127 research fields from 1753 until February 2019 are available in both .csv and .xlsx format under the files named retraction_18603.csv (https://osf.io/2kymw/) and retraction_18603.xlsx (https://osf.io/a2w8h/), respectively. The dataset, code examples, all figures, and other files are deposited and publicly available in OSF (https://osf.io/pbwv3/).

This research is funded by the Vietnam National Foundation for Science and Technology Development (NAFOSTED) under the National Research Grant no. 502.01-2018.19. We would also like to thank RetractionWatch for their contributions to science.
Fig. 1.
An example of code used.
Fig. 2.
Number of retracted articles per year since 1999.
Fig. 3.
Distribution of the number of retracted articles by journal impact factor.
Fig. 4.
Chord diagram for retractions of papers in different fields.
Fig. 5.
Top five countries according to the number of retracted articles by year.
Fig. 6.
Number of articles published each year of the top five countries with regard to the number of retracted articles.
Table 1.
The list of the ten oldest retracted articles
Date of retraction Date of publication Bibliographic information of the retracted article
June 24, 1756 January 1, 1753 Treatise upon electricity. Philosophical Transactions (Royal Society Publishing)
April 1, 1927 April 1, 1926 The trend-seasonal normal in time series. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 21 (155), 321-329 (Taylor and Francis)
December 1, 1940 December 1, 1940 Naturwissenschaft und reale Aussenwelt. Die Naturwissenschaften, DOI: 10.1007/BF01488952 (Springer)
February 1, 1942 February 1, 1942 Sinn und Grenzen der exakten Wissenschaft. Die Naturwissenschaften, DOI: 10.1007/BF01475382 (Springer)
February 1, 1960 February 1, 1955 Change of venue and the conflict of laws. The University of Chicago Law Review, 22(405) (University of Chicago Law School)
October 1, 1966 October 1, 1959 On the primary site of nuclear RNA synthesis. The Journal of Cell Biology, DOI: 10.1083/jcb.6.2.301 (Rockefeller University Press)
August 26, 1968 September 6, 1963 Unmineralized fossil bacteria. Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.141.3584.919 (American Association for the Advancement of Science)
October 1, 1971 October 1, 1971 Hyperextensibility and weakness in cerebral palsy apparently opposed expression of the same muscular disorder. Revue de Chirurgie Orthopedique et Reparatrice de L'appareil Moteur, URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4261570 (Elsevier)
February 24, 1977 November 1, 1975 Effects of cholinergic agents and sodium ions on the levels of guanosine and adenosine 3':5'-cyclic monophosphates in neuroblastoma and neuroblastoma X glioma hybrid cells. FEBS Letters, DOI: 10.1016/0014-5793(75)80344-9 (Wiley)
February 24, 1977 September 1, 1976 The effects of noradrenaline, acetylcholine, cyclic AMP, cyclic GMP, and other agents on the concentration of unesterified fatty acids in synaptosomes and synaptic membranes. FEBS Letters, DOI: 10.1016/0014-5793(76)80541-8 (Wiley)
Table 2.
The 10 retracted articles with the longest interval between publication and retraction
Date of retraction Date of publication Duration (yr) Bibliographic info of the retracted article
December 23, 2003 April 22, 1923 80 Een geval van uroptoë [A case of uropters]. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde, 67, 1855-1857 (Bohn Stafleu van Loghum)
November 1, 2007 January 1, 1955 52 Information, reproduction, and the origin of life. American Scientist, URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27826595 (Sigma Xi)
February 4, 2016 July 1, 1978 38 Hidrotische ektodermale dysplasie. Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie, DOI: 10.1007/BF02225787 (Springer)
October 1, 2017 May 1, 1980 37 Jealousy, attention, and loss. A. O. Rorty (ed.), Explaining Emotions. University of California Press, 465-488.
February 6, 2009 May 11, 1974 35 Cello scrotum. BMJ: British Medical Journal, DOI: 10.1136/bmj.2.5914.335-a (BMJ Publishing)
February 26, 2018 October 1, 1985 33 A mos oncogene-containing retrovirus, myeloproliferative sarcoma virus, transforms rat thyroid epithelial cells and irreversibly blocks their differentiation pattern. Journal of Virology, DOI: 10.1128/JVI.56.1.284-292.1985 (American Society for Microbiology)
March 1, 2018 September 1, 1987 31 One- and two-step transformations of rat thyroid epithelial cells by retroviral oncogenes. Molecular and Cellular Biology, DOI: 10.1128/MCB.7.9.3365 (American Society for Microbiology)
February 8, 2016 October 1, 1986 30 Diffusion and solubility of N-alkanes in polyolefines. Journal of Applied Polymer Science, DOI: 10.1002/app.1986.070320501 (Wiley)
July 10, 2015 June 01, 1986 29 Volume replacement with a new hydroxyethyl starch preparation (3 percent HES 200/0.5) in heart surgery. Transfusion Medicine and Hemotherapy, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2427448 (Karger)
October 01, 2017 September 01, 1988 29 Freud on unconscious affects, mourning, and the erotic mind. B. P. McLaughlin & A. O. Rorty (eds.), Perspectives on Self-Deception. University of California Press, 46-263
Table 3.
Number of publishers, journals, countries, and fields in which retraction decisions were made by year
Year Total no. No. of publishers No. of journals No. of countries No. of fields
1756 1 1 1 1 1
1927 1 1 1 1 1
1940 1 1 1 1 2
1942 1 1 1 1 1
1960 1 1 1 1 2
1966 1 1 1 1 4
1968 1 1 1 1 2
1971 1 1 1 1 1
1977 9 5 4 2 8
1980 12 7 7 3 12
1981 3 3 3 1 7
1982 5 5 5 3 11
1983 12 7 7 1 16
1984 8 7 7 4 13
1985 13 7 7 3 13
1986 12 6 6 2 14
1987 13 9 8 1 20
1988 4 3 3 3 6
1989 13 10 10 3 21
1990 19 12 18 9 27
1991 21 13 17 5 19
1992 25 17 19 9 26
1993 23 11 18 7 22
1994 24 13 21 9 21
1995 25 11 21 9 31
1996 14 10 12 3 17
1997 40 22 30 10 39
1998 59 23 35 16 35
1999 49 22 31 14 37
2000 38 16 27 16 38
2001 33 19 29 16 36
2002 68 27 49 20 57
2003 83 30 60 29 48
2004 122 44 88 31 69
2005 117 41 91 27 64
2006 185 69 143 34 79
2007 290 74 186 43 100
2008 370 89 233 47 95
2009 1,096 93 355 55 110
2010 4,867 92 401 70 118
2011 2,240 91 452 60 112
2012 873 137 567 68 112
2013 997 142 626 71 109
2014 891 142 609 82 106
2015 1,414 201 797 70 116
2016 1,547 210 913 91 115
2017 1,362 186 818 74 113
2018 1,515 195 822 80 110
2019 67 33 50 19 56
Total 18,586 2,162 7,613 1,128 2,192
Table 4.
Publishers with the largest number of retracted papers
Publisher Total no. of retracted papers No. of journals with retractions No. of fields with retractions Start year Recent year
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers 6,763 174 109 2002 2018
Elsevier 2,438 877 114 1971 2019
Springer 1,368 609 110 1940 2019
Wiley 987 399 104 1977 2019
Taylor and Francis 486 283 111 1927 2019
American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 305 4 42 1992 2019
SAGE Publications 297 113 93 1999 2019
Wolters Kluwer 252 105 70 1986 2019
BioMed Central 211 80 64 2001 2017
American Chemical Society 179 35 47 1995 2019
Hindawi 175 74 75 2007 2019
PLoS 173 6 69 2007 2019
Nature Publishing Group 166 39 55 1977 2018
Oxford Academic 131 73 74 1990 2019
International Union of Crystallography 130 1 7 2009 2012
National Academy of Sciences 121 1 41 1982 2018
American Association for Cancer Research 121 7 27 1992 2019
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 121 25 39 1987 2018
American Society for Microbiology 119 13 26 1989 2019
Oxford University Press 109 46 61 1995 2017
American Association for the Advancement of Science 106 4 42 1968 2018
Royal Society of Chemistry 94 27 35 2003 2019
De Gruyter 90 48 71 1991 2018
BMJ Publishing 83 26 53 1989 2018
Cell Press 78 16 30 1984 2018
Mary Ann Liebert 76 32 52 1989 2018
American Heart Association 73 5 23 1982 2018
American Association of Immunologists 58 2 21 1987 2017
e-Century Publishing Corporation 57 6 34 2013 2019
Cambridge University Press 53 31 60 1982 2018
American Physiological Society 53 9 27 1983 2018
Spandidos 52 8 33 2010 2018
American Society of Hematology 49 1 17 1996 2018
IOP Publishing 49 22 26 2008 2019
AIP Publishing 45 8 18 2003 2018
Frontiers 45 18 36 2012 2019
The Company of Biologists 44 5 19 2005 2018
Dove Press 43 18 42 2012 2018
MDPI 42 25 51 2010 2019
Karger 39 21 36 2006 2019
American Society for Clinical Investigation 39 1 24 1980 2019
American Physical Society 39 6 14 2002 2018
American Diabetes Association 37 2 22 1980 2019
American Medical Association 35 11 36 1989 2018
Bentham Open 34 13 42 2015 2018
EMBO Press 34 3 15 1990 2018
Total 18,601 4,507 5,817
Table 5.
Top 15 countries by number of retracted articles
Country Total no. of retracted articles No. of publishers First year articles were counted Most recent year articles were counted
China 8,612 165 1995 2019
United States 3,179 237 1927 2019
India 934 130 1992 2019
Japan 874 126 1986 2019
Germany 623 94 1940 2019
United Kingdom 593 96 1756 2019
Iran 582 69 2005 2019
South Korea 520 112 1999 2019
Italy 434 92 1994 2019
Canada 307 63 1982 2018
Taiwan 302 45 1993 2019
France 301 64 1985 2019
Spain 258 70 1999 2019
Australia 254 66 1982 2018
The Netherlands 222 51 1990 2018

Figure & Data



    Citations to this article as recorded by  
    • Characteristics of retracted research papers before and during the COVID-19 pandemic
      Yuki Furuse
      Frontiers in Medicine.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Retractions in arts and humanities: an analysis of the retraction notices
      Ivan Heibi, Silvio Peroni
      Digital Scholarship in the Humanities.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • A comparative study on characteristics of retracted publications across different open access levels
      Er-Te Zheng, Hui-Zhen Fu
      Journal of Data and Information Science.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Research done wrong: A comprehensive investigation of retracted publications in COVID-19
      Somipam R. Shimray
      Accountability in Research.2023; 30(7): 393.     CrossRef
    • “Research exceptionalism” in the COVID-19 pandemic: an analysis of scientific retractions in Scopus
      Priscila Rubbo, Caroline Lievore, Celso Biynkievycz Dos Santos, Claudia Tania Picinin, Luiz Alberto Pilatti, Bruno Pedroso
      Ethics & Behavior.2023; 33(5): 339.     CrossRef
    • Biased, wrong and counterfeited evidences published during the COVID-19 pandemic, a systematic review of retracted COVID-19 papers
      Angelo Capodici, Aurelia Salussolia, Francesco Sanmarchi, Davide Gori, Davide Golinelli
      Quality & Quantity.2023; 57(5): 4881.     CrossRef
    • Are female scientists underrepresented in self-retractions for honest error?
      Mariana D. Ribeiro, Jesus Mena-Chalco, Karina de Albuquerque Rocha, Marlise Pedrotti, Patrick Menezes, Sonia M. R. Vasconcelos
      Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Causes for Retraction in the Biomedical Literature: A Systematic Review of Studies of Retraction Notices
      Soo Young Hwang, Dong Keon Yon, Seung Won Lee, Min Seo Kim, Jong Yeob Kim, Lee Smith, Ai Koyanagi, Marco Solmi, Andre F Carvalho, Eunyoung Kim, Jae Il Shin, John P A Ioannidis
      Journal of Korean Medical Science.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • The relationship between methodological quality and the use of retracted publications in evidence syntheses
      Caitlin J. Bakker, Nicole Theis-Mahon, Sarah Jane Brown, Maurice P. Zeegers
      Systematic Reviews.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Retractions covered by retraction watch from 2017 to 2022: a perspective from Indian researchers
      Somipam R. Shimray, Sakshi Tiwari, Chennupati Kodand Ramaiah
      Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Non‐author entities accountable for retractions: A diachronic and cross‐disciplinary exploration of reasons for retraction
      Shaoxiong (Brian) Xu, Guangwei Hu
      Learned Publishing.2022; 35(2): 261.     CrossRef
    • Correction of the Scientific Production: Publisher Performance Evaluation Using a Dataset of 4844 PubMed Retractions
      Catalin Toma, Liliana Padureanu, Bogdan Toma
      Publications.2022; 10(2): 18.     CrossRef
    • Can tweets be used to detect problems early with scientific papers? A case study of three retracted COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 papers
      Robin Haunschild, Lutz Bornmann
      Scientometrics.2021; 126(6): 5181.     CrossRef
    • Research ethics: a profile of retractions from world class universities
      Caroline Lievore, Priscila Rubbo, Celso Biynkievycz dos Santos, Claudia Tânia Picinin, Luiz Alberto Pilatti
      Scientometrics.2021; 126(8): 6871.     CrossRef
    • Retractions, Fake Peer Reviews, and Paper Mills
      Horacio Rivera, Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
      Journal of Korean Medical Science.2021;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • A cross-disciplinary and severity-based study of author-related reasons for retraction
      Shaoxiong (Brian) Xu, Guangwei Hu
      Accountability in Research.2021;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Comprehensive Analysis of Retracted Publications in Dentistry: A 23-Year Review
      Shannon Samuel, Joe Mathew Cherian, Abi M. Thomas, Stefano Corbella
      International Journal of Dentistry.2020; 2020: 1.     CrossRef


    Science Editing : Science Editing