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’.”
BackgroundRetractions: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
Wager, E., Barbour, V., Yentis, S. M., & Kleinert, S. (2010) · International Journal of Polymer Analysis and Characterization · doi:10.1080/10236660903474522 · Cited by 22
Self-citationExpressions of concern and their uses
NOONAN, B. M., & Parrish, D. M. (2008) · Learned Publishing · doi:10.1087/095315108x288857 · Cited by 17
Horton, R. C. (1995) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(95)91935-x · Cited by 12
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Liu, 2006, Top journals' top retraction rates, Sci Ethics, 1, 91
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
“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).”
BackgroundDeep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank
Brembs, B., Button, K., & Munafò, M. (2013) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291 · Cited by 441
“…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).”
Retracted Science and the Retraction Index
Fang, F. C., & Casadevall, A. (2011) · Infection and Immunity · doi:10.1128/iai.05661-11 · Cited by 405
“This is a reasonably representative sample of the reasons for manuscript retraction discussed in guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (93, 94).”
BackgroundRetractedA Comprehensive Survey of Retracted Articles from the Scholarly Literature
Grieneisen, M. L., & Zhang, M. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0044118 · Cited by 355
“While previous studies have documented the increasing number of retractions per year [1], [2], [5], [9–11], [19], [24–30], the inclusion of non-PubMed literature here yielded dramatically higher absolute numbers (Fig.”
BackgroundResultWhy Growing Retractions Are (Mostly) a Good Sign
Fanelli, D. (2013) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001563 · Cited by 272
“Although retraction notices are becoming more transparent, many journals still lack clear policies for misconduct and retraction, and existing policies are applied inconsistently [19,20,21].”
Background
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
