CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 7Academic integrity and plagiarismscientometrics and bibliometrics researchAcademic Publishing and Open Access

A systematic analysis of temporal trends, characteristics, and citations of retracted stem cell publications

Open access
Song, Fei, Wu, Binghuo, Wei, Gang, Cheng, Songtao, Wei, Lichao, Xiong, Wei, Luo, De·2025·BMC Medicine
DOI 10.1186/s12916-025-03965-8PMC PMC11871751
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The increasing prevalence of retracted publications in stem cell research presents significant challenges to scientific integrity. Although retraction notices are issued, retracted studies continue to be cited, facilitating the dissemination of unreliable findings. This study aimed to systematically explore the characteristics of retracted stem cell publications and evaluate the impact of retractions on subsequent citations. METHODS: This study was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search of Web of Science, Retraction Watch Database, and PubMed was conducted from their inception through July 25, 2024, to identify retracted stem cell publications. Characteristics including publication details, retraction reasons, and citation counts were extracted. To assess the impact of retraction on subsequent citations, we compared citation patterns between a random sample of retracted papers and matched non-retracted controls from identical journals and issues. Further analysis was conducted to determine whether papers citing retracted articles had an elevated risk of subsequent retraction. Descriptive statistics, chi-squared tests, t-tests, and Mann-Kendall tests were used for data analysis. RESULTS: The systematic search identified 1421 records, with 517 publications meeting inclusion criteria. Temporal analysis revealed two significant trends: an increasing retraction rate that peaked at 0.84% in 2023 and a declining time-to-retraction (median: 30 months, interquartile range: 13-60; Mann-Kendall, tau = - 0.29; P < 0.001). Hospital-affiliated researchers from China contributed to 244 (47.2%) of retractions. Data and image flaws were identified in 360 (69.6%) of retractions. Among 472 Web of Science-indexed retracted publications, 366 (77.5%) accumulated 4884 post-retraction citations, with 114 (24.2%) receiving more citations post-retraction than pre-retraction. Analysis of a random subset of retracted articles (n = 53) demonstrated that only 14 (4.2%) out of 334 post-retraction citations referenced the retraction notice. Compared with 639 non-retracted control publications, retracted articles showed significantly lower post-retraction citation rates (mean rank: 291.32 vs. 351.08; P = 0.01). Moreover, papers citing retracted articles exhibited an 11-fold higher risk of subsequent retraction (odds ratio (OR): 11.09; 95% confidence interval (CI): 7.06-17.43). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis reveals substantial research integrity challenges within stem cell research. These findings suggest the necessity for enhanced surveillance mechanisms and standardized protocols to identify and curtail the dissemination of flawed research.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12916-025-03965-8

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. [1]Else H. Biomedical paper retractions have quadrupled in 20 years - why? Nature. 2024;630(8016):280–1. 38822109 · DOI · Paper page
  2. [2]Hwang SY, Yon DK, Lee SW, et al. Causes for retraction in the biomedical literature: a systematic review of studies of retraction notices. J Korean Med Sci. 2023;38(41): e333. 37873630 PMC10593599 · DOI
  3. [4]Bakker C, Boughton S, Faggion CM, Fanelli D, Kaiser K, Schneider J. Reducing the residue of retractions in evidence synthesis: ways to minimise inappropriate citation and use of retracted data. BMJ evidence-based medicine. 2024;29(2):121–6. 37463764 PMC10982619 · DOI · Paper page
  4. [5]Moylan EC, Kowalczuk MK. Why articles are retracted: a retrospective cross-sectional study of retraction notices at BioMed Central. BMJ Open. 2016;6(11): e012047. 27881524 PMC5168538 · DOI · Paper page
  5. [6]Wager E, Barbour V, Yentis S, Kleinert S. Retractions: guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Maturitas. 2009;64(4):201–3. 19954902 · DOI
  6. [7]Audisio K, Robinson NB, Soletti GJ, et al. A survey of retractions in the cardiovascular literature. Int J Cardiol. 2022;349:109–14. 34921899 · DOI
  7. [8]Nair S, Yean C, Yoo J, Leff J, Delphin E, Adams DC. Reasons for article retraction in anesthesiology: a comprehensive analysis. Can J Anaesth. 2020;67(1):57–63. 31617069 · DOI · Paper page
  8. [9]Zhu H, Jia Y, Leung SW. Citations of microRNA biomarker articles that were retracted: a systematic review. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(3): e243173. 38512253 PMC10958238 · DOI
  9. [10]Ferraro MC, Moore RA, de CWAC, et al. Characteristics of retracted publications related to pain research: a systematic review. Pain. 2023:164(11):2397–2404. 37310441
  10. [11]Levett JJ, Elkaim LM, Alotaibi NM, Weber MH, Dea N, Abd-El-Barr MM. Publication retraction in spine surgery: a systematic review. Eur Spine J. 2023;32(11):3704–12. 37725162 · DOI
  11. [12]Tan F, Li X, Wang Z, Li J, Shahzad K, Zheng J. Clinical applications of stem cell-derived exosomes. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2024;9(1):17. 38212307 PMC10784577 · DOI · Paper page
  12. [13]de Morree A, Rando TA. Regulation of adult stem cell quiescence and its functions in the maintenance of tissue integrity. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2023;24(5):334–54. 36922629 PMC10725182 · DOI
  13. [14]Kolios G, Moodley Y. Introduction to stem cells and regenerative medicine. Respiration. 2013;85(1):3–10. 23257690 · DOI
  14. [15]Jiang Y, Jahagirdar BN, Reinhardt RL, et al. Retraction note: pluripotency of mesenchymal stem cells derived from adult marrow. Nature. 2024;630(8018):1020. 38886620 · DOI
  15. [16]Obokata H, Sasai Y, Niwa H, et al. Retraction: bidirectional developmental potential in reprogrammed cells with acquired pluripotency. Nature. 2014;511(7507):112. 24990752
  16. [18]Elango B. Retracted articles in the biomedical literature from Indian authors. Scientometrics. 2021;126(5):3965–81. 33716353 PMC7937359 · DOI
  17. [19]Singh CD. How reliable is this research? Tool flags papers discussed on PubPeer. Nature. 2024;629(8011):271–2. 38684831 · DOI
  18. [20]Mousavi T, Abdollahi M. A review of the current concerns about misconduct in medical sciences publications and the consequences. Daru: journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences. 2020;28(1):359–69. 32072484 PMC7214560 · DOI · Paper page
  19. [21]Audisio K, Soletti GJ, Cancelli G, et al. Systematic review of retracted articles in critical care medicine. Br J Anaesth. 2022;128(4):e292–4. 35181059 PMC9074785 · DOI
  20. [22]China’s medical research integrity questioned. Lancet. 2015;385(9976):1365. 25890401 · DOI
  21. [24]Zilberman T, Margalit I, Yahav D, Tau N. Retracted publications in infectious diseases and clinical microbiology literature: an analysis using the retraction watch database. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2023;29(11):1454.e1451-1454.e1453. 37517523 · DOI
  22. [25]Jin J. Stem cell treatments Jama. 2017;317(3):330. 28114555
  23. [26]Yamanaka S. Pluripotent stem cell-based cell therapy-promise and challenges. Cell Stem Cell. 2020;27(4):523–31. 33007237 · DOI
  24. [27]Alessandrini M, Preynat-Seauve O, De Bruin K, Pepper MS. Stem cell therapy for neurological disorders. S Afr Med J. 2019;109(8b):70–7. 31662153 · DOI
  25. [28]Gao L, Xu W, Li T, et al. Stem cell therapy: a promising therapeutic method for intracerebral hemorrhage. Cell Transplant. 2018;27(12):1809–24. 29871521 PMC6300771 · DOI
  26. [29]Fujita M, Hatta T, Ikka T, Onishi T. The urgent need for clear and concise regulations on exosome-based interventions. Stem Cell Reports. 2024;19(11):1517–9. 39454583 PMC11589178 · DOI
  27. [30]Marks PW, Hahn S. Identifying the risks of unproven regenerative medicine therapies. JAMA. 2020;324(3):241–2. 32629463 · DOI
  28. [31]Xin X, Wang C, Lin Z, et al. Retraction notice to: inflammatory-related P62 triggers malignant transformation of mesenchymal stem cells through the cascade of CUDR-CTCF-IGFII-RAS signaling. Mol Ther Nucleic Acids. 2023;31:13. 36570674 PMC9764114 · DOI
  29. [32]Avior Y, Eggan K, Benvenisty N. Retraction notice to: cancer-related mutations identified in primed and naive human pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell. 2021;28(1):173. 33433329 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Song, F., Wu, B., Wei, G., Cheng, S., Wei, L., Xiong, W., & Luo, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Electronic Science and Technology of China (CN)
  • Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College (CN)
  • Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University (CN)
  • Southwest Medical University (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Xiong, Wei
  • Luo, De
ORCID
Venue
BMC Medicine
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2025-02-28
Volume
23
Issue
1
Pages
131-131
ISSN
1741-7015 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s12916-025-03965-8
PMC
PMC11871751
OpenAlex
W4408053795
Cited by
7
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 2
FWCI
1.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMC Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (82300137)
  • Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital (2022QN01)
  • Luzhou Municipal People's Government-Southwest Medical University Science and Technology Strategic Cooperation Project (2024LZXNYDJ078)
  • Southwest Medical University (2023YFS0240)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
Keywords
retracted article, stem cell research, citation patterns, scientific integrity, retraction rates, research misconduct
MeSH terms
Humans, Retraction of Publication as Topic, Stem Cells, Bibliometrics, Scientific Misconduct, Stem Cell 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