CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 91Academic integrity and plagiarismAcademic Publishing and Open AccessPublishing and Scholarly Communication

Empirical developments in retraction

Open access
Redman, B K, Yarandi, H N, Merz, J F·2008·Journal of Medical Ethics
DOI 10.1136/jme.2007.023069
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This study provides current data on key questions about retraction of scientific articles. Findings confirm that the rate of retractions remains low but is increasing. The most commonly cited reason for retraction was research error or inability to reproduce results; the rate from research misconduct is an underestimate, since some retractions necessitated by research misconduct were reported as being due to inability to reproduce. Retraction by parties other than authors is increasing, especially for research misconduct. Although retractions are on average occurring sooner after publication than in the past, citation analysis shows that they are not being recognised by subsequent users of the work. Findings suggest that editors and institutional officials are taking more responsibility for correcting the scientific record but that reasons published in the retraction notice are not always reliable. More aggressive means of notification to the scientific community appear to be necessary.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/jme.2007.023069

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 12 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Average citations before and after retraction differed significantly among six reasons for retraction.

    “Differences in the average number of citations before (F = 5.39, p,0.0001) and after retraction (F = 3.02, p = 0.0113) among the six reasons for retraction (table 3) were statistically significant”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Articles in higher-impact journals were more highly cited after retraction (r=0.61, p<0.0001).

    “with those in higher-impact journals more highly cited after retraction (r = 0.61, p,0.0001).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In 90% of cases the whole article was retracted.

    “Usually (in 90% of cases) the whole article was retracted.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Studies highly cited before retraction remained highly cited after retraction (r=0.60, p<0.0001).

    “the studies highly cited before retraction remained highly cited postretraction (r = 0.60, p,0.0001)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Retractions with publicity had significantly more average citations (29.38) than those without (14.27).

    “The average number of citations of manuscripts whose retractions had publicity (29.38) was significantly larger than of those with no publicity (14.27) (t = 2.98, p = 0.0031)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 12
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 6

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The rate of retraction of scientific articles remains low but has increased over time, from 0.0021% in 1966-1994 to 0.0065% in 1995-2004.

    “Findings confirm that the rate of retractions remains low but is increasing.”
    • Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
      “Compared with an earlier study of retractions for the years 1966-1994, 1 the present study found (1) a significantly higher rate of retraction (0.0021% versus 0.0065%, p,0.0001 by test of proportions)”
    • Also stated in: § Additional information · plain
      “rates of retraction, although very low, have increased between the periods 1966-1997 and 1995-2004”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [1] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    32 retractions (10%) received publicity in Science or Nature news sections, most frequently for research misconduct.

    “Thirty-two cases of retraction (10%) resulted in publicity in the news sections of Science or Nature, most frequently reporting on cases of research misconduct.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The primary reasons for retraction were research error, inability to reproduce, research misconduct, and plagiarism.

    “The primary reasons for retraction were research error, inability to reproduce, research misconduct and plagiarism.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    After retraction, citations differed significantly between research misconduct and plagiarism, and between inability to reproduce and plagiarism.

    “with significant differences between research misconduct and plagiarism (t = 2.90, p = 0.0040) and between inability to reproduce and plagiarism (t = 2.50, p = 0.0131) after retraction.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    Post-retraction citation rate remains high, especially associated with retraction for research misconduct and inability to reproduce.

    “The post-retraction citation rate remains high, especially associated with retraction for reasons of research misconduct and inability to reproduce.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The paper with 96 late post-retraction citations dealt with a supposedly settled controversy with significant environmental implications and was immediately questioned; its retraction was acknowledged in 29% of post-retraction citations.

    “The paper with 96 late post-retraction citations dealt with a supposedly settled controversy with significant environmental implications 7 and was immediately questioned by other scientists; the retraction of this paper was acknowledged in 29% of the post-retraction citations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [7] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    26 of 315 retractions were required by ORI findings of confirmed data fabrication/falsification, involving 17 authors.

    “Twenty-six such retractions were found (26/315), involving 17 authors.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The largest proportion of retractions were by all authors, followed by some authors and editors/publishers.

    “the largest proportion of retractions were by all authors, followed by some authors and by editors/publishers.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Retracted articles continue to be cited after retraction, and late citations rarely acknowledge the retraction.

    “citation analysis shows that they are not being recognised by subsequent users of the work.”
    • Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
      “In nine of these cases, the rate of acknowledgement of the retraction in these late citations was less than 3%.”
    • Also stated in: § Additional information · plain
      “The post-retraction citation rate remains high”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Retractions by parties other than authors increased, especially for research misconduct.

    “Retraction by parties other than authors is increasing, especially for research misconduct.”
    • Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
      “a decrease in the proportion of retractions initiated by authors (from 81% to 67%)”
    • Also stated in: § Additional information · plain
      “retractions are occurring more quickly and are more frequently initiated by parties other than authors.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    14 of the 26 ORI-related retractions gave other reasons, including inability to reproduce, invalid data, complicated reasons, not supportable, or appears falsified, and some gave no reason.

    “The rest (14) gave as reasons ''unable to reproduce'', ''data are invalid'', ''for complicated reasons'', ''not supportable by reproducible evidence'' or ''appears to have been falsified'' (without identifying which author was at fault), with the remainder offering no reason for the retraction.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Prior studies found that the dominant reason for retraction is research error or inability to reproduce.

    “Previous studies of retraction of scientific articles have shown that the dominant reason for retraction is research error or inability to reproduce results”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [1] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [2] Nath, 2006, Retractions in the research literature: misconduct or mistakes?, Med J Aust source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationnone given

    These standards are in some instances not followed.

    “these standards are in some instances not followed.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Parrish noted that retraction notices often obfuscated reasons for retraction, particularly in cases of research misconduct.

    “An early study by Parrish noted that retraction notices often obfuscated the reasons for retraction, particularly in cases of research misconduct 8”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [8] Parrish, 1999, Scientific misconduct and correcting the scientific literature., Acad Med source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    International standards require retraction notices to explain why the article is retracted.

    “International standards are clear that the text of the retraction should explain why the article is being retracted; 10”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [10] International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication. Philadelphia: ICMJE, 2007. http://www.icmje.org/index.html#authorsur (accessed 23 July 2008).

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Retractions are now clearly identified in Medline and PubMed.

    “even though retractions are now clearly identified in the Medline and PubMed databases.6”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [6] Anon. What’s the difference between MEDLINE and PubMed? [fact sheet]. Bethesda, Maryland: United States National Library of Medicine, 2006. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/dif_med_pub.html (accessed 23 July 2008).

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    A 10% sample of records was independently coded, with 3% disagreement resolved by negotiation.

    “Ten per cent of the records were coded independently, yielding a 3% disagreement, which was negotiated to agreement.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
17 of 17

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Journal impact factor is a valid indicator of a journal's prestige and the likelihood that its papers are widely cited.

    “Those with the highest impact factor are considered the most prestigious and their papers are likely to be widely cited, making it important that retractions be noted.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    News coverage in Science and Nature is a valid proxy for publicity to the scientific community.

    “reported in the news sections of Science and Nature and matched to cases in our data set were retrieved as proxy measures of publicity to the scientific community.”
2 of 2

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?

  • A marked recent rise in the frequency of retraction was confirmed, but was not uniform among the various causes of retraction.

    “A marked recent rise in the frequency of retraction was confirmed (2, 13), but was not uniform among the various causes of retraction (Fig. 1A).”

    From Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications (2012) · cites this paper as [13]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Earlier comparison period has conflicting end years

    Minor

    The results identify the earlier study period as ending in 1994, but the summary says it ended in 1997.

1 of 1

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Journal Citation Reports. Philadelphia: Thomson ISI, 2003.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Redman, B. K., Yarandi, H. N., & Merz, J. F.
Affiliations
  • Wayne State University (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
Corresponding author
Redman, B K
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Medical Ethics
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2008-10-30
Volume
34
Issue
11
Pages
807-809
ISSN
  • 0306-6800 (ISSN-L)
  • 1473-4257
DOI
10.1136/jme.2007.023069
OpenAlex
W2016914734
Cited by
91
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 9
FWCI
7.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Ethics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Scholarly Commons (University of Pennsylvania) (submittedVersion)
  • ScholarlyCommons (University of Pennsylvania) (submittedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
U.S. National Library of Medicine
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
research misconduct, research errors, reproducibility, citation analysis, journal editors, scientific records
MeSH terms
Authorship, Humans, Retraction of Publication as Topic, 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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-09-28.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-09-28.

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