The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988–2008
Open accessAbstract
Background: Journal editors are responsible for what they publish and therefore have a duty to correct the record if published work is found to be unreliable. One method for such correction is retraction of an article. Anecdotal evidence suggested a lack of consistency in journal policies and practices regarding retraction. In order to develop guidelines, we reviewed retractions in Medline to discover how and why articles were retracted. Methods: We retrieved all available Medline retractions from 2005 to 2008 and a one-in-three random selection of those from 1988 to 2004. This yielded 312 retractions (from a total of 870). Details of the retraction including the reason for retraction were recorded by two investigators. Results: Medline retractions have increased sharply since 1980 and currently represent 0.02% of included articles. Retractions were issued by authors (63%), editors (21%), journals (6%), publishers (2%) and institutions (1%). Reasons for retraction included honest error or non-replicable findings (40%), research misconduct (28%), redundant publication (17%) and unstated/unclear (5%). Some of the stated reasons might have been addressed by corrections. Conclusions: Journals' retraction practices are not uniform. Some retractions fail to state the reason, and therefore fail to distinguish error from misconduct. We have used our findings to inform guidelines on retractions.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“These factors have contributed to the systematic underestimation of the role of misconduct and the overestimation of the role of error in retractions (3, 4), and speak to the need for uniform standards regarding retraction notices (5).”
From Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications (2012) · cites this paper as [5]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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 [9]
In the citing paper
“Authors who commit fraud may come up with variables that are too similar for unrelated variables.This can be assessed with coefficients of variation.38”
From Assessing Research Misconduct in Randomized Controlled Trials (2021) · cites this paper as [38]
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
Committee on publication ethics
Singh, J. (2010) · Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapeutics · doi:10.4103/0976-500x.72371 · Cited by 349
Phenomena of Retraction: Reasons for Retraction and Citations to the Publications
Budd, J. M., Sievert, M., & Schultz, T. R. (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.280.3.296 · Cited by 230 · cited 1×
“Two studies of Medline retractions had been published before ours.”
BackgroundSox, H. C., & Rennie, D. (2006) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-144-8-200604180-00123 · Cited by 200 · cited 1×
“However, retracting a published article may not be straightforward and, when we began this study, few guidelines were available for editors to determine when a retraction (rather than a correction) was warranted. Retraction is one of the most serious sanctions journals can take against authors in cases of misconduct,…”
BackgroundRetractions 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 · cited 2×
“Nath et al studied retractions from 1982 to 2002 and classified the reasons as mistakes or misconduct (defined as fabrication, falsification or plagiarism).(7) To develop specific guidance for journal editors, we felt that an up-to-date survey using a more detailed classification of reasons for retraction (eg, disting…”
BackgroundEffects of article retraction on citation and practice in medicine.
(1999) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · Cited by 101
Retractions: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
Wager, E., Barbour, V., Yentis, S. M., & Kleinert, S. (2009) · Maturitas · doi:10.1016/j.maturitas.2009.09.018 · Cited by 94
Self-citationRetractions: guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
Wager, E., Barbour, V., Yentis, S. M., & Kleinert, S. (2009) · Obesity Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1467-789x.2009.00702.x · Cited by 60
Self-citationRetraction policies of high-impact biomedical journals.
Atlas, M. (2004) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · Cited by 59
Korenman, S. G. (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.279.1.41 · Cited by 57 · cited 1×
“Korenman et al surveyed 606 scientists receiving US National Science Foundation grants and 91 representatives of research institutions with responsibility for the ethical conduct of research (listed by the US Office of Research Integrity) about whether certain acts were unethical and, if so, the appropriate response a…”
BackgroundScientific misconduct and correcting the scientific literature.
Parrish, D. M. (1999) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00001888-199903000-00009 · Cited by 28 · cited 1×
“about allegations and findings of scientific misconduct’.(3) In a later study, she examined the use of ‘expressions of concern’ and concluded that these may be useful ‘for ensuring the integrity of the research record during the sometimes lengthy period that research misconduct investigations can take’.”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
1 of the 14 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Liu, 2006, Top journals' top retraction rates, Sci Ethics, 1, 91
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–264 of 264
Etika Penelitian: Kajian Rektraksi Artikel Ilmiah Teknik Sipil
Hansen, S. (2023) · Jurnal Teknik Sipil · doi:10.5614/jts.2023.30.1.15 · Cited by 2
What ranking journals has in common with astrology
Brembs, B. (2013) · Riviste UNIMI (Università degli studi di Milano) · doi:10.13130/2282-5398/3378 · Cited by 2
Evidence-based radiology and child abuse
Greeley, C. S. (2015) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511862366.021 · Cited by 2
Visual Analytic Observatory of Scientific Knowledge
Chen, C., & Song, M. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-62543-0_9 · Cited by 2
Integridad y conductas inapropiadas en investigación biomédica
Luisa Schonhaut, B. (2019) · Revista chilena de pediatría · doi:10.32641/rchped.v90i2.1034 · Cited by 2
Readership Awareness Series – Paper 9: Retraction of a Publication
Ali, M. J., & Djalilian, A. R. (2024) · Seminars in Ophthalmology · doi:10.1080/08820538.2024.2306434 · Cited by 2
Maoui, A. (2024) · Pan African Medical Journal · doi:10.11604/pamj.2024.48.182.44793 · Cited by 2
Demystifying the Medical Literature
Greeley, C. S. (2016) · Academic Forensic Pathology · doi:10.23907/2016.055 · Cited by 1
Thymosin-ɑ1 for people with chronic hepatitis B
Htet, N. H., Naing, C. M., Vongpunsawad, S., Win, T. T., & Poovorawan, Y. (2022) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd014610 · Cited by 1
Dos rectificaciones al Libro Rojo de Aves de Colombia
Renjifo, L. M., & Amaya-Villarreal, Á. M. (2021) · Ornitología colombiana · doi:10.59517/oc.e531 · Cited by 1
“…revisión del Comité de Ética de Publicación (COPE) sobre las retractaciones en Medline entre 1988-2004, encontró que sólo 28% de los casos se deben a errores honestos dentro de los cuales hay errores de investigación (por ejemplo, una celda equivocada) o errores de cálculos (Wager & Williams 2011).”
BackgroundVirtual reality-related exercise for people with chronic kidney disease undergoing haemodialysis
Nishiwaki, H., Levack, W., Hasegawa, T., Noma, H., Ota, E., Suzuki, T., Watanabe, Y., Tashiro, N., Han, Y., Li, D., et al. (2025) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd016138 · Cited by 1
Palla, I. A., & Singson, M. (2026) · Information Discovery and Delivery · doi:10.1108/idd-09-2025-0221 · Cited by 1
García-Romero, A., lez-Mancebo, S. G. A., Espallardo, C., & Concepción, M. A. (2026) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-026-05699-7 · Cited by 4
“Similarly, Wager and Williams (2011) analyzed retractions in medical journals and found that the reasons for retraction significantly influenced post-retraction citation rates.”
Pourhoseingholi, M. A., Rahimi-Bashar, F., Fetrat, M. K., & Vahedian‐Azimi, A. (2021) · Hospital Practices and Research · doi:10.34172/hpr.2021.06 · Cited by 1
“Hospital Practices and Research 2021;6(1):29-34 30 risk.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialGogtay, N. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-10-7062-4_23 · Cited by 1
Sphincterotomy for people with biliary sphincter of Oddi dysfunction
Naing, C. M., Aung, H. H., Ni, H., Htet, N. H., & Pavlov, C. S. (2022) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd014944 · Cited by 1
The Use and Misuse of the Medical Literature
Greeley, C. S. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-12041-1_16 · Cited by 1
Scientific Fraud and Other Types of Scientific Misconduct
Ferris, L. E. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-10-7062-4_24 · Cited by 1
Can, İ. H. (2021) · Ethics Medicine and Public Health · doi:10.1016/j.jemep.2021.100734 · Cited by 1
Ethical and Legal Aspects of Publishing: Avoiding Plagiarism and Other Issues
Pierson, C. (2012) · doi:10.1002/9781118702727.ch12 · Cited by 1
Gee, G. C. (2015) · Journal of Health and Social Behavior · doi:10.1177/0022146515600694 · Cited by 1
RetractedRetracted Publications in the Biomedical Literature from 2012-2018: An OverviewPreprint
Wang, T., & Xing, Q.-R. (2020) · doi:10.21203/rs.2.23808/v1 · Cited by 1
“Error was the leading cause of retracted publications from 1988 to 2008, accounting for 28% of all retractions (Wager and Williams2011).”
BackgroundEthical and Legal Aspects of Publishing
Pierson, C. (2021) · doi:10.1002/9781119583592.ch11 · Cited by 1
Duplicate publication and plagiarism: is RHC safe?
Maina, S., & Napoli, M. D. (2012) · Reviews in Health Care · doi:10.7175/rhc.33034225-227 · Cited by 1
Motivating and Maintaining Ethics, Equity, Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Expertise in Peer ReviewPreprint
Craig, A. (2022) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/srhe9 · Cited by 1
Duplicate publication and plagiarism: is RHC safe?
Maina, S., & Napoli, M. D. (2012) · Reviews in Health Care · doi:10.7175/rhc.v3i4.330
“It is very common in biomedical literature: in their “Why and how do journals retract articles?”, Wager and Williams analyzed Medline retractions between 1988 and 2008, finding out that 17% occurred due to redundant publication [4].”
BackgroundIntegrity in Research Publishing and Professional Accountability
Holt, G. R. (2013) · JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1001/jamafacial.2013.15
How Not to Deal with It: A Case Study
Zhang, Y.-H. H. (2015) · Qualitative and quantitative analysis of scientific and scholarly communication · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24160-9_4
Catalá-López, F., Peiró, S., Hutton, B., & Pérez, C. I. D. (2014)
Nolan, T., & Bustin, S. A. (2013) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.1201/b14930-20
DECLARATIONOFTRANSPARENCY:PROMOTINGAMORECOMPLETE, HONESTANDADEQUATEPUBLICATIONOFSCIENTIFICARTICLES
Catalá-López, F., Peiró, S., Hutton, B., & Pérez, C. (2014) · Dialnet (Universidad de la Rioja)
The 20th Anniversary of the Committee on Publication Ethics
Kojima, T., & Barron, J. P. (2017) · 日本消化器外科学会雑誌 · doi:10.5833/jjgs.2017.sc003
Deep Impact: Unintended consequences of journal rank
Brembs, B., Button, K. S., & Munafo, M. R. (2013) · University of Regensburg Publication Server (University of Regensburg) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1301.3748
“…2003; Yue et al., 2007; SønderstrupAndersen and Sønderstrup-Andersen, 2008), any alternative hierarchy that would better reflect article citation frequencies might violate this intuitive sense of journal rank, as different ways to compute journal rank lead to different hierarchies (Wagner, 2011).”
Chambers, L., Michener, C. M., & Falcone, T. (2019) · BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/1471-0528.15828
Why Are So Few Nursing Science Papers Retracted?
Gray, R. J. (2018) · Nurse author & editor · doi:10.1111/j.1750-4910.2018.tb00020.x
Lessons from retracted publications on acupuncture: a narrative scoping review
Kim, T., & Kang, J. W. (2021) · Acupuncture in Medicine · doi:10.1177/0964528420970554
hafez, D. E. (2021) · المجلة الدولية لعلوم المكتبات و المعلومات · doi:10.21608/ijlis.2021.157855
Toma, C., Padureanu, L., & Toma, B. (2022) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2022.01.23.477400
“…researched topic in the last two decades, numerous articles making valuable contributions in this field (Nath et al. 2006; Redman et al. 2008; Wager and Williams 2011; Steen 2011; Samp et al. 2012; Fang et al. 2012; Steen et al. 2013; Decullier et al. 2013; Madlock-Brown and Eichmann 2015;…”
BackgroundWinker, M. A. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-10-7062-4_20
The Reproducibility Crisis and Autism Spectrum Research
Bennett, M., & Goodall, E. (2022) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/978-1-80382-463-520221011
ASLIM, G., Çelik, E. Y., & DANIŞ, E. M. (2022) · Ankara Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi · doi:10.33988/auvfd.1103012
“In a study conducted by Wager and Williams (56) on why journals rejected articles between 1988 and 2008, 16% ( n = 312) of the articles were reported to be retractions because of plagiarism, and some journals even banned authors who made plagiarism or unnecessary publications.”
Backgroundالأبحاث المصرية المسحوبة من النشر: دراسة ببليومترية تحليلية
عثمان, إ. ر. (2022) · المجلة المصرية لعلوم المعلومات · doi:10.21608/jesi.2021.96329.1038
Ortega, J. L., & Delgado-Quirós, L. (2023) · PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/aqd5p
Delgado‐Quirós, L. (2023) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/tvh25
Hepatitis B immunisation for adults with end-stage kidney disease
do Nascimento, I. J. B., Pac, A., Zanghelini, F., Civile, V. T., Corrêa, N. E., & Abdulazeem, H. M. (2023) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd014764
Readership awareness series – Paper 9: Retraction of a publication
Ali, M. J., & Djalilian, A. R. (2024) · The Ocular Surface · doi:10.1016/j.jtos.2024.01.008
Robot-assisted surgery for benign and malignant liver lesions
Kollbeck, S. L. G., Tschuor, C., Hillingsø, J., & Penninga, L. (2024) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd015100
Bordino, M., Ravizzotti, E., & Vercelli, S. (2020) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.13311255
Schneider, J., Woods, N. D., & Proescholdt, R. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.21162748
Sánchez, C., Ortega, J. L., Delgado‐Quirós, L., Becerra-Rodero, E., García, A. C., & Moreno, C. (2026) · Journal of Information Science · doi:10.1177/01655515251398723 · Cited by 5
Retractions in Scholarly Publishing: Causes, Consequences, and the Path Forward
Negm, A. M., Farhan, S. H., & Singh, R. (2026) · Trends in Scholarly Publishing · doi:10.21124/tsp.2026.15.22
Screening Articles for Inclusion in SR/MA
Hassan, T. A., & Chau, L. D. (2026) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-3007-4.ch007
Evaluating retractions in meta-analysis studies: a cross-sectional study
Fattah, F. H., Kakamad, F. H., Nasralla, H. A., Salih, A. M., Ahmed, J. O., Bapir, R., Mahmood, Y. M., Hasan, S. J., Mohammed, S. H., Abdalla, S. S., et al. (2025) · International Journal of Surgery Open · doi:10.1097/io9.0000000000000316
Taira, N., Nishiwaki, H., Yamaji, N., Takami, R., Noma, H., Ota, E., Levack, W., Hasegawa, T., & Transplant, S. B. C. K. A. (2026) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd016365
Altunışık, E. (2026) · Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery · doi:10.1016/j.clineuro.2026.109578
Examining corrected papers in the “Primary Health Care” category in the Web of Science database
Beyoğlu, M. M., Kaya, E., & BEYOĞLU, E. (2026) · The Annals of Clinical and Analytical Medicine · doi:10.4328/acam.22983
From discovery to disrepute: a study of retractions in biological research
Bhat, M., & Malik, B. A. (2026) · Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication · doi:10.1108/gkmc-06-2025-0414
Thymosin-ɑ1 for people with chronic hepatitis B
Naing, C. M., Ni, H., Aung, H. H., Aye, S. N., Nikolova, D., Poovorawan, Y., & Pavlov, C. S. (2026) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd014610.pub2
Ismaili, Y. (2026) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989621.2026.2741356
“Wager and Williams (2011) describe this kind of journal-level concentration as retraction clustering, indicative of systematic infra-structural failure rather than isolated editorial error; the SAGE data are consistent with that pattern.”
Music-based interventions for people with kidney failure undergoing haemodialysis
Nishiwaki, H., Levack, W., Hasegawa, T., Ota, E., Noma, H., Suzuki, T., Watanabe, Y., Abe, Y., Tomioka, H., Kondo, D., et al. (2026) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd016139.pub2
Metadata
- Authors
- Wager, E., & Williams, P.
- Affiliations
- University College London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Wager, Elizabeth
- Venue
- Journal of Medical Ethics
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2011-04-12
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 567-570
- ISSN
- 0306-6800 (ISSN-L)
- 1473-4257
- OpenAlex
- W2129970316
- Cited by
- 263
- References
- 14
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 17
- FWCI
- 43.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- public-domain
- Locations
- Journal of Medical Ethics (publishedVersion, public-domain)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Keywords
- retraction, retraction reasons, research misconduct, duplicate publication, journal editorial policy, MEDLINE, research integrity
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Periodicals as Topic, Publishing, Research, Research Design, Retraction of Publication as Topic, Scientific Misconduct, MEDLINE, Ethics, Research, 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
