The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Analysis of scientific paper retractions due to data problems: Revealing challenges and countermeasures in data management
Open accessAbstract
Background Scientific data, the cornerstone of scientific endeavors, face management challenges amid technological advances. While retractions are analyzed, a rigorous focus on data problems leading to them is missing.Methods This study collected 49,979 retraction records up to 17 December 2023. After screening 16,842 records were related to data problems and 19,656 were due to other reasons. Methods such as descriptive statistics, hypothesis testing, and the BERTopic (Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers Topic Modelling) were applied to conduct a topic analysis of article titles.Result The results show that since 2000, retractions due to data problems have increased significantly (p < 0.001), with the percentage in 2023 exceeding 75%. Among 16,842 data-related retractions, 59.0% were in Basic Life Sciences and 40.2% in Health Sciences. Data problems involve accuracy, reliability, validity, and integrity. There are significant differences (p < 0.001) in subjects, journal quartiles, retraction intervals, and other characteristics between data-related and other retractions. Data-related retractions are more concentrated in high-impact journals (Q1 37.6% and Q2 43.0%).Conclusions Institutions, publishers, and journals should adopt image-screening tools, enforce data deposition, standardize retraction notices, provide ethics training, and strengthen peer review to address these data problems, guiding better data management and healthier scientific development.
Overview
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?
In the citing paper
“In a study that collected almost 50,000 retractions in 2023, nearly 19–32% of those retracted articles were related to data handling and analysis.34,35”
From Artificial Intelligence in Detecting Statistical Errors: Implications for Authors, Reviewers, and Editors (2025) · cites this paper as [35]
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
1 retracted
Lee, A., Brandt, G. S., Iwakoshi, N. N., Schinzel, A. C., & Glimcher, L. H. (2024) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adp1104 · Cited by 4
RetractedMisconduct 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 1×
“Previous research has pointed out that the long retraction times associated with data fabrication cases are a common challenge in uncovering this type of misconduct (Fang, Steen, and Casadevall 2012).”
Fanelli, D., Costas, R., & Larivière, V. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0127556 · Cited by 268
Green and sustainable AI research: an integrated thematic and topic modeling analysis
Raghu Raman, R., Pattnaik, D., Lathabai, H. H., Kumar, C., Govindan, K., & Nedungadi, P. (2024) · Journal Of Big Data · doi:10.1186/s40537-024-00920-x · Cited by 181
Kjelvik, M. K., & Schultheis, E. H. (2019) · CBE—Life Sciences Education · doi:10.1187/cbe.18-02-0023 · Cited by 151
Kendall, G., & Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2024) · Learned Publishing · doi:10.1002/leap.1578 · Cited by 100
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
Retractions in the Engineering Field: A Study on the Web of Science Database
Rubbo, P., Lievore, C., dos Santos, C. B., & Pìlatti, L. A. (2017) · Ethics & Behavior · doi:10.1080/10508422.2017.1390667 · Cited by 40
Khademizadeh, S., Danesh, F., Esmaeili, S., Lund, B. D., & Santos-d’Amorim, K. (2023) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989621.2023.2223996 · Cited by 36
Characteristics of retracted publications related to pain research: a systematic review
Ferraro, M. C., Moore, A., Williams, A. C. D. C., Fisher, E., Stewart, G. B., Ferguson, M. C., Eccleston, C., & O'Connell, N. E. (2023) · Pain · doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002947 · Cited by 35
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Clarivate. 2024. Journal Citation Reports. https://jcr.clarivate.com.
- Retraction Watch. 2014. “Leading Chemist Notches Two Retractions in One Journal Separated by 47 Years.” Retraction Watch. February 25. https://retractionwatch.com/2014/02/25/leading-chemist-notches-two-retractions-in-one-journal-separated-by-47-years/.
- SAGE. 2022. 2022 World Conference on Research Integrity: SAGE’s approach to research integrity and preserving trust. https://perspectivesblog.sagepub.com/blog/author-services/2022-world-conference-on-research-integrity-sages-approach-to-research-integrity-and-preserving-trust.
- Springer. 2024. Plagiarism Prevention with CrossCheck. https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/editors/plagiarism-prevention-with-crosscheck/4238.
- 10.16418/j.issn.1000-3045.20230406002 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
“34,35 In the era of COVID, The Lancet journal has retracted a study about the use of hydroxychloroquine in COVID, using the ‘Surgisphere’ data source, and the following analysis could not be validated.”
Misuse of Generative AI in Academic and Research Publishing
Tang, B. L. (2026) · Publishing Research Quarterly · doi:10.1007/s12109-026-10074-8 · Cited by 1
Opening Pandora’s box: Developing reviewer rhetorical sensitivity through retracted articles
Khuder, B. (2025) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989621.2025.2607681
Library Professionals’ Roles in Addressing Article Retractions
Subaveerapandiyan, A., & Seifi, L. (2026) · Collection Management · doi:10.1080/01462679.2026.2675893 · Cited by 1
Nanoplastics at the Science-Policy Interface: Strengthening the Evidence Base for Decision-Making
Monikh, F. A., Wiesner, M. R., Peijnenburg, W. J. G. M., Lee, J., & Grossart, H. (2026) · ACS Chemical Health & Safety · doi:10.1021/acs.chas.6c00014
Retractions in Psychology and Psychiatry in Web of Science
Faúndez, O. A., Saracini, C., & Muñoz-Quezada, M. T. (2026) · Journal of Bioethical Inquiry · doi:10.1007/s11673-026-10581-5
Zahn-Muñoz, C., Rojas, E. M., & Quezada, A. M. (2026) · Publications · doi:10.3390/publications14040068
Retractions in the field of pregnancy and pain: bibliometric characteristics, reasons, and trends
Yerlanova, D., Zimba, O., Khojakulova, U., Nurmashev, B., Qumar, A. B., & Koçyiğit, B. F. (2026) · Rheumatology International · doi:10.1007/s00296-026-06319-6
Metadata
- Authors
- Hu, W., Yan, G., Zhang, J., Chen, Z., Qian, Q., & Wu, S.
- Affiliations
- Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Qian, Qing
- Wu, Sizhu
- Venue
- Accountability in Research
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2025-07-20
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 2531987-2531987
- ISSN
- 0898-9621 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-5815
- OpenAlex
- W4412507053
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 34
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 7.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Accountability in Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science and Technology Major Project for the Prevention and Treatment of Cancer, Cardiovascular, Respiratory, and Metabolic Diseases (2023ZD0509702)
- Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (CAMS) Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences Program (2021-I2M-1-057)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Research Data Management Practices
- Keywords
- data challenges, research data management, data integrity, data accuracy, data reliability, data validity, peer review, research ethics training, data deposition
- MeSH terms
- Data Management, Humans, Retraction of Publication as Topic, Reproducibility of Results, Scientific Misconduct
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
