Why retracted articles can have an influential afterlife—and what to do about it
Open accessAbstract
Retractions of published journal articles are an increasingly common means by which the research community ensures the quality and integrity of publications and addresses research misconduct missed during pre-publication peer review. Retractions are intended to notify the public of issues that undermine the integrity of these publications so that readers will not rely on their findings and conclusions. Continued citation and other uses of these publications without acknowledging their retracted status are therefore problematic and suggest shortcomings in retraction processes. In this commentary, we use the examples of retracted articles published in this journal to outline ways in which retracted articles can maintain an influential afterlife in the academic literature, online materials from non-profit organizations and private businesses, and responses from generative artificial intelligence. Given that this ongoing influence compounds the harms of these publications, we recommend changes in how publishers manage article retractions. These changes include ensuring that article retraction notices are maintained when journal publishing agreements change, increasing the visibility of retractions, and notifying scholars and members of the public when an article they reference is retracted. While these changes will make article retractions more effective, there is a continued need to limit the publication of studies that violate the requirements of research integrity.
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This commentary argues that retracted articles can sustain an "influential afterlife" as "zombie papers"—still cited in scholarship, promoted by nonprofits and businesses, and surfaced by generative AI without any notice of retraction. Using retracted articles from *Stem Cells Translational Medicine* as examples, the authors recommend publisher reforms to make retractions more visible and persistent.
Key findings
- Retracted articles continue to be cited uncritically: of 72 Google Scholar citations of the retracted Riordan et al. article listed in June 2026, 27 appeared in articles published online after its retraction, including 15 since 2023, none of which note the retraction or offer critical discussion. The retracted Patil et al. article has 13 citations since 2020, none acknowledging its retraction.
- Retraction flagging is inconsistent: PubMed and the original publisher (Wiley) label Riordan et al. clearly, but the Oxford University Press–hosted version (accessed via its DOI at submission time) did not state the article was retracted, and some databases and reference managers (Semantic Scholar, Google Scholar, EndNote) also fail to flag it. Patil et al. has clearer, more consistent markers.
- Non-academic actors propagate retracted work: the nonprofit Options for Autism (founded 2022, after the retraction) lists Riordan et al. among "Related Scientific Publications," and businesses connected to the authors and unrelated stem cell clinics use the study as marketing legitimacy; behavioral-therapy businesses also reference it for internet traffic.
- Generative AI tools (Meta AI, Gemini, Google AI overview) surfaced Riordan et al. and Patil et al. without disclosing their retracted status. The authors cite a stem cell retraction rate of 0.84% (117 of 13,856 publications) in 2023, which they say likely understates the number warranting retraction.
Methods
- Commentary/opinion piece, not an empirical study; it uses case examples of articles retracted from *Stem Cells Translational Medicine* (Riordan et al. 2019, retracted 2021 for undisclosed participant charges; Patil et al. 2013, retracted 2019 for image duplication).
- Evidence assembled from citation records (Google Scholar counts), publisher and database retraction labeling, nonprofit and business websites, and generative AI query outputs (figures dated June–July 2026).
- Recommendations are derived from these examples and prior literature (e.g., COPE retraction guidelines, NISO RP-45-2024).
Limitations
- The paper states no formal limitations. It acknowledges that its examples are drawn from one journal but asserts the points are "not article-, journal-, or field-specific."
- Evident from the text: the analysis is illustrative rather than systematic—citation counts come from a single source (Google Scholar) at a single time point, and the AI outputs are dated snapshots rather than a structured evaluation.
- The authors concede that proposed reforms have limits and that voluntary compliance by businesses with financial interests in retracted findings is unlikely.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
7 of 19 cited sources checked · 5 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured
- Findingcitation
Riordan et al. is included as a normal part of the scientific literature in articles contributing to meta-analyses and reviews or aiding interpretation of newly reported data.
“Instead, this retracted article is included as a normal part of the scientific literature in these articles, contributing to metaanalyses and reviews of the current state of stem cell science19,20 or aiding the interpretation of newly reported data.21,22”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim4 of 4 sources checked- cites [19] Nabetani, 2023, Cell therapies for autism spectrum disorder based on new pathophysiology: a review, Cell Transplant. source
- cites [20] Bitsika, 2024, Current status of psychopharmacological, neuromodulation, and oxytocin treatments for autism: implications for clinical practice, Adv Neurodev Disord. source
The References section lists Riordan et al. (2019) without a retraction warning, supporting the narrower point that this review includes it as a literature reference. The Method section describes this paper as an overview for clinicians, not a meta-analysis; our copy does not show Riordan contributing to a stem-cell meta-analysis or aiding interpretation of newly reported data, and it does not establish the article’s retraction status. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites [21] Wang, 2023, Characterization of dynamical changes in vital signs during allogeneic human umbilical Cord-Derived mesenchymal stem cells infusion, Regen Ther. source
- cites [22] Wu, 2025, Dual-Target hUCMSCs/EVs therapy for autism spectrum disorder: remodeling gut microbiota and modulating neuroimmune crosstalk in a valproic Acid-Induced C57BL/6 mice model, Stem Cell Res Ther. source
The References section (reference 40; page unavailable) lists Riordan et al. (2019) alongside other stem-cell research, supporting that Wu et al. includes it as part of the scientific literature. The passages found do not show Wu et al. using Riordan et al. to interpret its newly reported data, and this source is not itself a meta-analysis or review. The copy also does not address the article’s retraction status. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
- Findingcitation
Generative AI chatbots may use and surface references to scientific research without disclosing their retracted status, including references to Riordan et al. and Patil et al.
“While these chatbots can be trained to identify and warn users about retracted articles, they may also use and surface references to scientific research without disclosing their retracted status.9,30,31 This includes references to Riordan et al. and Patil et al. without disclosing that they have been retracted (see Figures 1-3).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked- cites [9] Zhang, 2025, Retracted articles on stem cells are continuously cited in publications and used by ChatGPT, Scientometrics. source
- cites [30] Thelwall, 2025, Does ChatGPT ignore article retractions and other reliability concerns?, Learned Publishing source
- cites [31] Labenbacher, 2026, Performance of AI tools in citing retracted literature: content analysis, J Med Internet Res. source
- Findingown data
At the time of manuscript submission, accessing Riordan et al. via its DOI led to an Oxford University Press-hosted version that did not state the article had been retracted.
“At the time this manuscript was submitted for publication, when the article was accessed online using its digital object identifier code (10.1002/sctm.19-0010), the viewer was taken to a version of the article hosted by Oxford University Press, the journal’s current publisher, which did not state that the article has been retracted.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingnone given
At the time of writing, some academic databases and referencing systems, including Semantic Scholar, Google Scholar, and EndNote, do not flag Riordan et al.'s retraction.
“At the time of this writing, some academic databases and referencing systems, including Semantic Scholar, Google Scholar, and EndNote, also do not flag the article’s retraction.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Riordan et al. continues to be cited in the academic literature without appropriate disclosures.
“Following this pattern, Riordan et al. continues to be cited in the academic literature without appropriate disclosures.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
- Findingcitation
Businesses offering behavioral therapy as an alternative to stem cell interventions have referenced the retracted Riordan et al. study to capture internet traffic related to online searches for information on stem cell interventions for ASD.
“In the context of stem cell interventions for ASD, businesses offering behavioral therapy as an alternative to stem cell interventions have also referenced this retracted study to capture internet traffic related to online searches for information on stem cell interventions for ASD.29”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [29] TinyEYE Online Therapy Services, .
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Findingown data
Of the 72 citations of Riordan et al. listed on Google Scholar in June 2026, 27 appear in articles published online after its retraction.
“Of the 72 citations of this article listed on Google Scholar in June 2026, 27 appear in articles published online after Riordan et al.’s retraction.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingcitation
A business connected to some authors of Riordan et al. continues to host a copy of the study as part of its marketing materials without indicating it has been retracted.
“A business connected to some of the authors continues to host a copy of the study as part of its marketing materials to potential customers without any indication that it has been retracted.26”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [26] Stem Cell Institute, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationreasoning
The continued and uncritical citation of Riordan et al. may be exacerbated by inadequate and inconsistent flagging of its retracted status.
“The continued and uncritical citation of Riordan et al. in particular may be exacerbated by inadequate and inconsistent flagging of its retracted status.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationnone given
Retracted papers can experience an influential afterlife as zombie papers-publications that appear in and influence academic and nonacademic fora without acknowledgement of their retracted status.
“Retracted papers can experience an influential afterlife as zombie papers—publications that appear in and influence academic and nonacademic fora without acknowledgement of their retracted status.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationcitation
Other businesses may appeal to the seeming legitimacy of retracted studies to build trust in their own similar businesses and claim credibility for stem cell 'treatments' they market to prospective clients.
“Other businesses may appeal to the seeming legitimacy of retracted studies to build trust in their own, similar businesses and claim a veneer of credibility for the stem cell “treatments” they market to prospective clients.27,28”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites [27] R3 Stem Cell, .
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites [28] Utah Stem Cells, .
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationreasoning
Continued promotion of Riordan et al. by some businesses supports the concern that voluntary removal of references to retracted articles is unlikely to be widespread.
“Continued promotion of Riordan et al. by some of these businesses supports this concern.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationcitation
The number of articles that should be retracted due to research misconduct is likely considerably higher than the observed retraction rate.
“This rate is likely considerably lower than the number of articles that should be retracted due to research misconduct.4”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [4] Oransky, 2021, Retractions in medicine: the tip of the iceberg, Eur Heart J. source
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 6
- May combine two claims. 7
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationThe retraction rate for stem cell-related publications rose to 0.84% (117 of 13,856) in 2023.
“This general trend includes stem cell-related publications, where the retraction rate rose to 0.84%, or 117 of 13 856 publications in 2023.3”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [3] Song, 2025, A systematic analysis of temporal trends, characteristics, and citations of retracted stem cell publications, BMC Med. source
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataOf the citations of Riordan et al. after retraction, 15 are since 2023, and none note the retraction or offer critical discussion.
“Even factoring in extended timelines for publication, this includes 15 citations since 2023, none of which note that the article was retracted or offer critical discussion of its findings.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataWhile a link to the retraction notice is now included in the Oxford University Press-hosted version of Riordan et al., it does not include 'retraction' in the article title nor in the article PDF.
“While a link to the retraction notice is now included in the Oxford University Press-hosted version of the article, it does not include ‘retraction’ in the article title as with other retracted articles in this journal, nor is the retraction included in the article PDF.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataGoogle Scholar records 13 citations to Patil et al. since 2020, none of which acknowledge its retraction.
“Google Scholar records 13 citations to this article since 2020, none of which acknowledge that it has been retracted.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingnone givenPatil et al. has clearer and more consistent markers of its retraction, including in the article title on the Oxford University Press website.
“By contrast, Patil et al. has clearer and more consistent markers of its retraction, including in the article’s title on the Oxford University Press website.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
FindingcitationThe California-based nonprofit Options for Autism, founded in 2022 after the retraction of Riordan et al., includes the article on a list of 'Related Scientific Publications' to support a claim about observed improvement in patients treated at its facilities.
“The California-based nonprofit organization Options for Autism, for example, was founded in 2022, after the retraction of the Riordan et al. article. It includes the article on a list of “Related Scientific Publications” to support the claim that “Through administration of mesenchymal stem cells, we have observed improvement in patients treated at our facilities”.25”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [25] Options for Autism, 2026
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationPatil et al. was originally published in 2013 and retracted in February 2019 due to image duplication that editors believed made some data unreliable.
“This article, originally published in 2013, was retracted in February 2019 due to image duplication that the editors believed “make some of the data unreliable”.24”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [24] Patil, 2019, Notice of retraction: inappropriate image duplication in ‘recellularization of acellular human small intestine using bone marrow stem cells, Stem Cells Transl Med. source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).
InterpretationcitationThe points about retracted article afterlife and management are not article-, journal-, or field-specific and have broader relevance for how scholarly journals manage retraction processes and address continued citation of retracted articles.
“While these examples are drawn from one journal, the points we make are not article-, journal-, or field-specific. Rather, they have broader relevance for how scholarly journals manage retraction processes and work to address continued citation of retracted articles.8”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [8] De Cassai, 2022, Inappropriate citation of retracted articles in anesthesiology and intensive care medicine publications, Anesthesiology. source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
Interpretationnone givenEven if proposed reforms were implemented, article retractions face limits in their effectiveness.
“Even if the proposed reforms were implemented, article retractions face limits in their effectiveness, demonstrating the continued need for vigilance to limit the publication of studies with seriously flawed, fabricated, or otherwise problematic claims, or with important disclosures omitted.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataEven after retraction, retracted articles can maintain an influential afterlife, compounding the harms of their original publication.
“In this commentary, we use examples of retracted articles in Stem Cells Translational Medicine to demonstrate that even after retraction, retracted articles can maintain an influential afterlife, compounding the harms of their original publication.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationcitationRetracted journal articles can enjoy an active afterlife, including ongoing scholarly citations, uncritical engagement from public organizations and private businesses, and inclusion in generative artificial intelligence outputs such as ChatGPT.
“Retracted journal articles can enjoy an active afterlife—including ongoing scholarly citations, uncritical engagement from public organizations and private businesses, and, increasingly, inclusion in generative artificial intelligence outputs such as ChatGPT.9”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [9] Zhang, 2025, Retracted articles on stem cells are continuously cited in publications and used by ChatGPT, Scientometrics. source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationRetractions 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”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checkedProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).
InterpretationreasoningBetter flagging of retracted publications might make it more difficult for businesses to use retracted studies as scientific veneers for their commercial activities.
“Nonetheless, better flagging of retracted publications might make it more difficult for such businesses to use retracted studies as scientific veneers for their commercial activities.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.
Cited works that were retracted
Works this paper cites that were later retracted, from the retraction notices publishers deposit. Major when the notice came out before this paper was published.
Cites a retracted work: 10.1002/sctm.19-0010
MajorThe cited work was retracted on 2021-11-30 (notice 10.1002/sct3.13044), before this paper was published (2026-08-18). Its authors could have known.
Cited work 10.1002/sctm.19-0010 · retracted 2021-11-30 · notice 10.1002/sct3.13044 · this paper published 2026-08-18
“Riordan, 2019, Allogeneic human umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells for the treatment of autism spectrum disorder in children: safety profile and effect on cytokine levels, Stem Cells Transl Med., 8, 1008, 10.1002/sctm.19-0010”
Cites a retracted work: 10.5966/sctm.2012-0108
MajorThe cited work was retracted on 2019-02-01 (notice 10.1002/sctm.12433), before this paper was published (2026-08-18). Its authors could have known.
Cited work 10.5966/sctm.2012-0108 · retracted 2019-02-01 · notice 10.1002/sctm.12433 · this paper published 2026-08-18
“Patil, 2013, Retracted: recellularization of acellular human small intestine using bone marrow stem cells, Stem Cells Transl Med., 2, 307, 10.5966/sctm.2012-0108”
Cites a retracted work: 10.1007/s11192-025-05484-y
InfoThe cited work was retracted; the date of the notice is not on record.
Cited work 10.1007/s11192-025-05484-y · retraction date not known · this paper published 2026-08-18
“Zhang, 2025, Retracted articles on stem cells are continuously cited in publications and used by ChatGPT, Scientometrics., 130, 6503, 10.1007/s11192-025-05484-y”
Cites a retracted work: 10.1002/sctm.12433
InfoThe cited work was retracted; the date of the notice is not on record.
Cited work 10.1002/sctm.12433 · retraction date not known · this paper published 2026-08-18
“24 Google Scholar records 13 citations to this article since 2020, none of which acknowledge that it has been retracted.”
Cites a retracted work: 10.1002/sct3.13044
InfoThe cited work was retracted; the date of the notice is not on record.
Cited work 10.1002/sct3.13044 · retraction date not known · this paper published 2026-08-18
“Retraction, 2021, Stem Cells Transl Med., 10, 1717, 10.1002/sct3.13044”
Cites
5 retracted
Riordan, N. H., Hincapié, M. L., Morales, I., Fernández, G., Allen, N., Leu, C., Madrigal, M., Rodríguez, J. P., & Novarro, N. (2019) · Stem Cells Translational Medicine · doi:10.1002/sctm.19-0010 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
RetractedRetracted: Recellularization of Acellular Human Small Intestine Using Bone Marrow Stem Cells
Patil, P. B., Chougule, P. B., Kumar, V. K., Almström, S., Bäckdahl, H., Banerjee, D., Herlenius, G., Olausson, M., & Sumitran–Holgersson, S. (2013) · Stem Cells Translational Medicine · doi:10.5966/sctm.2012-0108 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Retracted(2021) · Stem Cells Translational Medicine · doi:10.1002/sct3.13044 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
RetractedPatil, P. B., Chougule, P. B., Kumar, V. K., Almström, S., Bäckdahl, H., Banerjee, D., Herlenius, G., Olausson, M., & Sumitran-Holgersson, S. (2019) · Stem Cells Translational Medicine · doi:10.1002/sctm.12433 · Cited by 2 · cited 1× · see citing works
“24 Google Scholar records 13 citations to this article since 2020, none of which acknowledge that it has been retracted.”
RetractedRetracted articles on stem cells are continuously cited in publications and used by ChatGPT
Zhang, X., Gu, T., Loganathan, S., Xie, Y., & Chen, J. (2025) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-025-05484-y · Cited by 1 · see citing works
RetractedRetractions are increasing, but not enough
Oransky, I. (2022) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-022-02071-6 · Cited by 63 · cited 1× · see citing works
“33 Reviewing the status of cited articles during the peer review process and later during the early stages of the proofreading process could enable journals to discharge this duty and ensure that authors are aware when they are citing retracted articles.”
Biomedical paper retractions have quadrupled in 20 years — why?
Else, H. (2024) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-024-01609-0 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
De Cassai, A., Geraldini, F., De Pinto, S., Carbonari, I., Cascella, M., Boscolo, A., Sella, N., Monteleone, F., Cavaliere, F., Munari, M., et al. (2022) · Anesthesiology · doi:10.1097/aln.0000000000004302 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
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 34 · cited 1× · see citing works
“17,18 This is true of retracted stem cell-related publications as well, where most continue to be cited after retraction and rarely with notice of their status.”
Retractions in medicine: the tip of the iceberg
Oransky, I., Fremes, S. E., Kurlansky, P., & Gaudino, M. (2021) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehab398 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Bakker, C., Boughton, S., Faggion, C. M., Fanelli, D., Kaiser, K., & Schneider, J. (2024) · BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine · doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2022-111921 · Cited by 28 · cited 2× · see citing works
“32 Such screening can be assisted by citation managers such as Zotero that automate the identification of retracted works and alert authors to changes in the status of published references.”
How to Stop the Unknowing Citation of Retracted Papers
Marcus, A., Abritis, A. J., & Oransky, I. (2022) · Anesthesiology · doi:10.1097/aln.0000000000004333 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Ethical issues concerning a pay-to-participate stem cell study
Turner, L. G., & Snyder, J. (2021) · Stem Cells Translational Medicine · doi:10.1002/sctm.20-0428 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Self-citationDoes <scp>ChatGPT</scp> Ignore Article Retractions and Other Reliability Concerns?
Thelwall, M., Lehtisaari, M., Katsirea, I., Holmberg, K., & Zheng, E. (2025) · Learned Publishing · doi:10.1002/leap.2018 · Cited by 18 · cited 1× · see citing works
“9,30,31 This includes references to Riordan et al. and Patil et al. without disclosing that they have been retracted (see Figures 1-3).”
Cell Therapies for Autism Spectrum Disorder Based on New Pathophysiology: A Review
Nabetani, M., Mukai, T., & Taguchi, A. (2023) · Cell Transplantation · doi:10.1177/09636897231163217 · Cited by 13 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Instead, this retracted article is included as a normal part of the scientific literature in these articles, contributing to metaanalyses and reviews of the current state of stem cell science 19,20 or aiding the interpretation of newly reported data.”
NISO RP-45-2024, Communication of Retractions, Removals, and Expressions of Concern (CREC)
NISO Communication of Retractions, R. (2024) · doi:10.3789/niso-rp-45-2024 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Song, F., Wu, B., Wei, G., Cheng, S., Wei, L., Xiong, W., & Luo, D. (2025) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-025-03965-8 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Retracted studies in systematic reviews and clinical guidelines
Candal‐Pedreira, C., & Ruano‐Raviña, A. (2025) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.r724 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Lendvai, G. F., & Sasvári, P. (2026) · Journal of Information Science · doi:10.1177/01655515251362383 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Bitsika, V., & Sharpley, C. F. (2024) · Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders · doi:10.1007/s41252-023-00364-z · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Performance of AI Tools in Citing Retracted Literature : Content Analysis
Labenbacher, S., Niederer, M., Hammer, S., Bader, M., Schreiber, N., & Bornemann-Cimenti, H. (2026) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/88766 · Cited by 5 · cited 1× · see citing works
“9,30,31 This includes references to Riordan et al. and Patil et al. without disclosing that they have been retracted (see Figures 1-3).”
Riordan, N. H., & Rodríguez, J. P. (2021) · Stem Cells Translational Medicine · doi:10.1002/sctm.21-0234 · Cited by 4 · cited 2× · see citing works
“14 The Committee on Publication Ethics notes that “references should be checked by the authors and the journal before publication.”
Wang, Y., Yu, H., Tang, H., Zhu, R., Shi, Y., Xu, C., Li, Y., Wang, H., Chen, Y., Shen, P., et al. (2023) · Regenerative Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.reth.2023.07.007 · Cited by 3 · cited 1× · see citing works
“21,22 This can be seen in Patil et al., another retracted article from this journal, as well.”
A data mining-based study on academic publication retractions in the 21st Century
Shen, Q., Gao, X.-Y., & Xiong, X.-M. (2025) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989621.2025.2528064 · Cited by 3 · cited 1× · see citing works
“17,18 This is true of retracted stem cell-related publications as well, where most continue to be cited after retraction and rarely with notice of their status.”
Wu, C., Li, X., Yang, X., Wang, H., Lin, G., & Liu, Z. (2025) · Stem Cell Research & Therapy · doi:10.1186/s13287-025-04829-x · Cited by 3 · cited 1× · see citing works
“21,22 This can be seen in Patil et al., another retracted article from this journal, as well.”
(2021) · Stem Cells Translational Medicine · doi:10.1002/sct3.13023 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Snyder, J., & Turner, L.
- Affiliations
- Simon Fraser University (CA)
- University of California, Irvine (US)
- Venue
- Stem Cells Translational Medicine
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2026-08-18
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 9
- ISSN
- 2157-6564 (ISSN-L)
- 2157-6580
- PMC
- PMC13549933
- OpenAlex
- W7211951543
- Semantic Scholar
- f11dcc1e2fc1f216909c4a807eacf4d49059f533
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 26
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Stem Cells Translational Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
- Keywords
- retracted article, research integrity, research misconduct, generative AI, research quality assurance
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Periodicals as Topic, Publishing, Retraction of Publication as Topic, 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.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-21.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-21.
Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.
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
