Biomedical paper retractions have quadrupled in 20 years — why?
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Retractions have become more common in recent years.
“Retractions have become more common in recent years, potentially because of lax oversight of conference proceedings, the use of ‘paper mills’ to generate substantial numbers of ghost-written publications, and other factors.1,2”
From Why retracted articles can have an influential afterlife—and what to do about it (2026) · cites this paper as [1]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 2 · Cited by 38
- Authors
- Else, H.
- Corresponding author
- Else, Holly
- Venue
- Nature
- Published
- 2024-05-31
- Volume
- 630
- Issue
- 8016
- Pages
- 280-281
- ISSN
- 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-4687
- OpenAlex
- W4399209280
- Cited by
- 38
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 10
- Type
- other
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Nature (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Keywords
- retraction, biomedical research, research misconduct, data falsification, unreliable data, scientific integrity, publication ethics
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Periodicals as Topic, Research Personnel, Retraction of Publication as Topic, Time Factors, Scientific Misconduct, Biomedical Research, History, 20th Century, History, 21st Century
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
