Repeating probability of authors with retracted scientific publications
Open accessAbstract
Both the scientific community and the general public have expressed concern over scientific misconduct. The number of retracted articles has increased dramatically over the past 20 years and now comprises about .02% of the 2 million articles published each year. Retraction of publications available in large public databases can be analyzed as an objective measure for scientific misconduct and errors. In this project, we analyzed retractions of scientific publications using the Web of Science (WoS) and PubMed databases. We found that a power law is applicable to distributions of retracting authors and retracted publications with exponents of about -.6 and -3.0, respectively. Application of a power-law model for retracted publications implies that retraction is not a random event. Analysis of the retraction distributions suggests that a small fraction (1-2%) of retracting authors with ≧5 retractions are responsible for around 10% of retraction. The probabilities for their repeating retraction are calculated using a statistical model: 3-5% likelihood of repeat retraction for authors with a single retraction at five years after the latest retraction and 26-37% for authors with five retractions at five years after the latest retraction. By focusing on those with repeated retractions, this analysis could contribute to identification of measures to reduce such repetition of retractions.
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?
Previous investigations of research fraud have often found that once issues indicative of fraud are uncovered in a publication, one or more authors are repeat offenders.
“This is consistent with previous investigations of research fraud where, once issues indicative of fraud are uncovered in a publication, it is often subsequently found that one or more of the authors are repeat-offenders 38,39 .”
From Fraudulent studies are undermining the reliability of systematic reviews: on the prevalence of problematic images in preclinical depression studies (2025) · cites this paper as [38]
Cites
Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications
Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1212247109 · Cited by 1,232 · cited 3× · see citing works
“Van Noorden (2011) and Fang et al. (2012) found that 44–67% of retracted publications were attributable to misconduct, including fraud, duplicate publication, and plagiarism, while 21–28% were due to errors (see the supplementary figure).”
BackgroundInfluentialWhy has the number of scientific retractions increased?
Steen, R. G., Casadevall, A., & Fang, F. C. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068397 · Cited by 415 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Team size and retracted citations reveal the patterns of retractions from 1981 to 2020
Sharma, K. (2021) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-021-04125-4 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Mistry, V., Grey, A., & Bolland, M. J. (2019) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989621.2019.1612244 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Berrío, J. P., & Kalliokoski, O. (2025) · FEBS Letters · doi:10.1002/1873-3468.70077 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kuroki, T., & Ukawa, A.
- Affiliations
- Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JP)
- RIKEN (JP)
- Corresponding author
- Kuroki, Toshio
- ORCID
- Kuroki, Toshio
- Venue
- Accountability in Research
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2018-03-21
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 212-219
- ISSN
- 0898-9621 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-5815
- OpenAlex
- W2791971732
- Cited by
- 27
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3
- FWCI
- 5.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- figshare.com
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Accountability in Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Figshare (cc-by)
- Funders
- support
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Keywords
- retracted article, research misconduct, power-law distribution, research integrity, Web of Science, PubMed, publication errors
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Periodicals as Topic, Probability, Retraction of Publication as Topic, Bibliometrics, Scientific Misconduct, Editorial Policies, Biomedical Research
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