A systematic review of retracted publications in emergency medicine
Abstract
The objective of this study was to characterize retracted publications in emergency medicine. We searched MEDLINE, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify all retracted publications in the field of emergency medicine. We also searched an independent website that reports and archives retracted scientific publications. Two researchers independently screened titles, abstracts and full text of search results. Data from all included studies were then independently extracted. We identified 28 retraction notes. Eleven (39%) articles were published by authors from Europe. The oldest retracted article was published in 2001. The 28 retracted papers were published by 22 different journals. Two authors were named on multiples retractions. The median impact factor of journals was 1.03 (0.6-1.9). Almost all studies were available online [26/28 (93%)], but only 40% had watermarking on the article. The retraction notification was available for all articles. Three (11%) retraction notices did not clearly report the retraction reasons, and most retraction notices were issued by the editors [14 (56%)]. The most frequent retraction reasons were plagiarism [eight (29%)], duplicate publication [three (11%)] and overlap [two (2%)]. Retracted articles were cited on average 14 times. In most cases, the retraction cause did not invalidate the study's results [17 (60%)]. The most common reason for retraction was related to a misconduct by the authors. These results…
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?
Between 22% and 54% of retractions are due to methodological issues or concerns regarding data.
“between 22% and 54% of retractions are due to methodological issues or concerns regarding data, 8-12”
From Evaluating the Accuracy of scite, a Smart Citation Index (2023) · cites this paper as [12]
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 · see citing works
Why 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
Haase, N., Perner, A., Hennings, L. I., Siegemund, M., Lauridsen, B., Wetterslev, M., & Wetterslev, J. (2013) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.f839 · Cited by 310 · see citing works
Retractions in the research literature: misconduct or mistakes?
Nath, S. B., Marcus, S. C., & Druss, B. G. (2006) · Medical Journal of Australia · doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2006.tb00504.x · Cited by 161 · see citing works
Sources of error in the retracted scientific literature
Casadevall, A., Steen, R. G., & Fang, F. C. (2014) · The FASEB Journal · doi:10.1096/fj.14-256735 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Post retraction citations among manuscripts reporting a radiology-imaging diagnostic method
Bolboacă, S. D., Buhai, D.-V., Aluaș, M., & Bulboacă, A. E. (2019) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0217918 · Cited by 42 · 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 · see citing works
Evaluating the Accuracy of scite, a Smart Citation Index
Bakker, C., Theis-Mahon, N., & Brown, S. J. (2023) · Hypothesis: Research Journal for Health Information Professionals · doi:10.18060/26528 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Sridharan, K., & Sivaramakrishnan, G. (2026) · Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics · doi:10.3389/frma.2025.1737168 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
- Authors
- Chauvin, A., De Villelongue, C., Pateron, D., & Yordanov, Y.
- Affiliations
- Inserm (FR)
- Geriatrics Department, Hôpital Bretonneau
- Sorbonne Université (FR)
- Corresponding author
- Yordanov, Youri
- Venue
- European Journal of Emergency Medicine
- Published
- 2019-02
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 19-23
- ISSN
- 0969-9546 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2749837437
- Cited by
- 47
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 0.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- European Journal of Emergency Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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, emergency medicine, retraction reasons, plagiarism, duplicate publication, research misconduct, research integrity, journal impact factor
- MeSH terms
- Emergency Medicine, Humans, Retraction of Publication as Topic, Duplicate Publications as Topic, Plagiarism, 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