The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Artificial intelligence and retracted science
Open accessOverview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
As more studies are retracted, AI offers helpful, albeit imperfect, support.
“As more studies are retracted, AI offers helpful, albeit imperfect, support.”
From Artificial Intelligence in Detecting Statistical Errors: Implications for Authors, Reviewers, and Editors (2025) · cites this paper as [33]
The Abstract reports a surge in retractions, reaching a new peak in 2023. It also says developers can use retraction notices to exclude flawed articles from AI training, but it does not say AI itself offers helpful support in handling the growing number of retractions; instead, it emphasizes the risks of training AI on retracted work. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredResearch retraction has reached a 'crisis' level in the context of the pressure of publishing.
“On the other hand, research retraction has reached a ‘crisis’ level in the context of the pressure of publishing.”
From Artificial Intelligence in Detecting Statistical Errors: Implications for Authors, Reviewers, and Editors (2025) · cites this paper as [33]
The paper’s Abstract (page not provided) reports a significant surge in retractions, reaching over 10,000 post-review papers in 2023, which supports describing their scale as a crisis. It does not connect that surge to pressure to publish; it discusses flaws in peer review and manipulation of publishing systems instead. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredTaylor and Francis had to retract 350 papers in 2022 alone, while Wiley retracted more than 8,000 articles in 2023.
“Taylor and Francis had to retract 350 papers in 2022 alone, while Wiley retracted more than 8,000 articles in 2023.33”
From Artificial Intelligence in Detecting Statistical Errors: Implications for Authors, Reviewers, and Editors (2025) · cites this paper as [33]
The paper states that over 350 papers were retracted in Taylor & Francis Group journals in 2022. It also states that Wiley’s subsidiary Hindawi—not Wiley directly—retracted over 8,000 articles in 2023. The citing sentence captures the scale and years but drops those distinctions. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAmong articles accessed by technology companies are retracted articles, which can lead to spread of misinformation that can be disseminated quickly.
“However, among those articles are retracted articles, which can lead to the spread of misinformation that can be disseminated quickly.33”
From Artificial Intelligence in Detecting Statistical Errors: Implications for Authors, Reviewers, and Editors (2025) · cites this paper as [33]
Among the reasons for those retractions are data and analysis-related retractions.
“Among the reasons for those retractions are data and analysis-related retractions.”
From Artificial Intelligence in Detecting Statistical Errors: Implications for Authors, Reviewers, and Editors (2025) · cites this paper as [33]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Reform retractions to make them more transparent
Vuong, Q. (2020) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-020-01694-x · Cited by 835
Self-citationVuong, Q., & Nguyen, M. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4922461 · Cited by 35
Self-citationHas your paper been used to train an AI model? Almost certainly
Gibney, E. (2024) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-024-02599-9 · Cited by 21
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Nguyen, M.-H., & Ho, M.-T. (2026) · MethodsX · doi:10.1016/j.mex.2026.103910 · Cited by 13
Self-citationGiray, L., Sevnarayan, K., Maphoto, K. B., & Wider, W. (2026) · Internet Reference Services Quarterly · doi:10.1080/10875301.2026.2637526 · Cited by 11
Alnaimat, F., AlSamhori, A. R. F., El Sharu, H., Othman, L., Oralbek, A., & Zimba, O. (2025) · Journal of Korean Medical Science · doi:10.3346/jkms.2025.40.e342 · Cited by 4
“33 Among the reasons for those retractions are data and analysis-related retractions.”
“Academic Slop”: Definition and Bibliometric Exploration of Its Relationship to AI Tools
Daly, T. P., da Silva, J. A. T., & Nazarovets, S. (2026) · Internet Reference Services Quarterly · doi:10.1080/10875301.2026.2685154 · Cited by 4
Farrow, R. (2025) · BMC Research Notes · doi:10.1186/s13104-025-07608-2 · Cited by 3
Avoiding Label Leakage in AI Risk Models—A Shared Responsibility for a Pervasive Problem
Matheny, M. E., & Davis, S. E. (2025) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.50464 · Cited by 2
Fute, A. Z., Oubibi, M., Amihere, A., Kangwa, D., & Msafiri, M. M. (2026) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-026-07235-7 · Cited by 2
Marginal notes, June 2025. Artificial Stupidity.
Inglis, T. J. J. (2025) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · doi:10.1099/jmm.0.002049
Regaining Scientific Authority in a Post-Truth Landscape
Petzold, A. M., & Nichols, M. D. (2025) · Publications · doi:10.3390/publications13040065 · Cited by 3
Generative AI in Academic Publishing
Kumar, A., McKeown, D., Syed, H., Craig, C. J., Rupley, W. H., Ahmed, A., Kashwani, S., & Siddiqui, K. A. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/407619
The Discovery of Quasicrystals: Reflections on Theory Change and Correct Attribution
Ramírez-de-Arellano, J. M. (2026) · Histories · doi:10.3390/histories6040058
Metadata
- Authors
- Nguyen, M.-H., & Vuong, Q.-H.
- Affiliations
- Phenikaa University (VN)
- Corresponding author
- Nguyen, Minh-Hoang
- Venue
- AI & SOCIETY
- Published
- 2024-10-23
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 2345-2346
- ISSN
- 0951-5666 (ISSN-L)
- 1435-5655
- OpenAlex
- W4403701260
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 5
- FWCI
- 4.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- AI & Society (publishedVersion)
- PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
- Keywords
- retracted research, generative AI, peer review, research integrity, data fabrication, scholarly publishing, subjectivity in assessment, Taylor & Francis, Microsoft
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
