Correcting the literature: Improvement trends seen in contents of retraction notices
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyse retraction notices from 2016 and compare their quality to the 2008 notices. RESULTS: From 146 retractions retrieved, only 123 were included, of which, a clear reason for retraction was available for 122 (99.2%) and no reason was given for one (0.8%). The main reasons for retraction were mistakes 26.0% (n = 32), fraud 26.0% (n = 32), plagiarism 20.3% (n = 25), and overlap 8.1% (n = 10). In 100 (81.3%) cases, a mention of retraction was available on the original paper, in 15 (12.2%) there was no mention of retraction, and 8 (6.5%) papers were deleted. Compared to the previous cohorts, management of retraction has improved because 99.2% provided a clear reason, and 81.3% of original articles were available with a mention of the retraction.
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
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?
Often articles are not clearly labelled as retracted: 52/233 (22%) retracted papers in one sample (Decullier, Huot et al., 2013) and 15/123 (12.2%) retracted papers in a second sample (Decullier & Maisonneuve, 2018) were not watermarked or clearly labeled.
“Often articles are not clearly labelled as retracted: This was the case for two studies of Medline-indexed papers, where 52/233 (22%) retracted papers in one sample (Decullier, Huot et al., 2013) and 15/123 (12.2%) retracted papers in a second sample (this excluded withdrawn articles) (Decullier & Maisonneuve, 2018) were not watermarked or clearly labeled.”
From Continued use of retracted papers: Temporal trends in citations and (lack of) awareness of retractions shown in citation contexts in biomedicine (2021) · cites this paper as Decullier & Maisonneuve, 2018
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
1 retracted
Retraction policies of top scientific journals ranked by impact factor
Resnik, D. B., Wager, E., & Kissling, G. E. (2015) · Journal of the Medical Library Association JMLA · doi:10.3163/1536-5050.103.3.006 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
RetractedWhy and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988–2008
Wager, E., & Williams, P. (2011) · Journal of Medical Ethics · doi:10.1136/jme.2010.040964 · Cited by 263 · see citing works
Visibility of retractions: a cross-sectional one-year study
Decullier, E., Huot, L., Samson, G., & Maisonneuve, H. (2013) · BMC Research Notes · doi:10.1186/1756-0500-6-238 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Self-citationCorrecting the Medical Literature: “To Err Is Human, to Correct Divine”
Christiansen, S. L., & Flanagin, A. (2017) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2017.11833 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Rétractations pour erreur et pour fraude
Decullier, É., Samson, G., & Huot, L. (2012) · La Presse Médicale · doi:10.1016/j.lpm.2012.05.006 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Smith, R. W. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7420.883 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Hsiao, T.-K., & Schneider, J. (2021) · Quantitative Science Studies · doi:10.1162/qss_a_00155 · Cited by 98 · see citing works
Plagiarism detection and prevention: a primer for researchers
Zimba, O., & Gasparyan, A. Y. (2021) · Reumatologia/Rheumatology · doi:10.5114/reum.2021.105974 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
Hwang, S. Y., Yon, D. K., Lee, S. W., Kim, M. S., Kim, J. Y., Smith, L., Koyanagi, A., Solmi, M., Carvalho, A. F., Kim, E. Y., et al. (2023) · Journal of Korean Medical Science · doi:10.3346/jkms.2023.38.e333 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Fortification of retraction notices to improve their transparency and usefulness
da Silva, J. A. T., & Vuong, Q. (2021) · Learned Publishing · doi:10.1002/leap.1409 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
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
Reducing the Inadvertent Spread of Retracted Science: recommendations from the RISRS report
Schneider, J., Woods, N. D., Proescholdt, R., the RISRS Team, Burns, H., Howell, K., Campbell, M. T., Hsiao, T., Yip, Y. Y. ‘., Fu, Y., et al. (2022) · Research Integrity and Peer Review · doi:10.1186/s41073-022-00125-x · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Analysis of Retracted Publications in Medical Literature Due to Ethical Violations
Koçyiğit, B. F., Akyol, A., Zhaksylyk, A., Seiil, B., & Yessirkepov, M. (2023) · Journal of Korean Medical Science · doi:10.3346/jkms.2023.38.e324 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Christopher, M. M. (2022) · BMC Veterinary Research · doi:10.1186/s12917-022-03167-x · Cited by 22 · see citing works
The spread of retracted research into policy literature
Malkov, D., Yaqub, O., & Siepel, J. (2023) · Quantitative Science Studies · doi:10.1162/qss_a_00243 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Retraction according to gender: A descriptive study
Decullier, É., & Maisonneuve, H. (2021) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989621.2021.1988576 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Citation of Retracted Papers and Impact on the Integrity of the Scientific Biomedical Literature
da Silva, J. A. T., Santos-d’Amorim, K., & Bornemann‐Cimenti, H. (2025) · Learned Publishing · doi:10.1002/leap.1667 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Schneider, J., Woods, N. D., Proescholdt, R., Fu, Y., & The RISRS Team (2021) · doi:10.31222/osf.io/ms579 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Schneider, J., Lee, J., Zheng, H., & Salami, M. O. (2023) · International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (STI) · doi:10.55835/6441e5cae04dbe5586d06a5f · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Retraction of Scientific Papers: Types of Retraction, Consequences, and Impacts
Candal‐Pedreira, C., Pérez‐Ríos, M., & Ruano‐Raviña, A. (2022) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-99680-2_40 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Ética en la publicación científica biomédica. Revisión de las publicaciones retractadas en España
Cuenca, G. M., Oliván, J. A. S., & Avilés, R. A. (2019) · El Profesional de la Informacion · doi:10.3145/epi.2019.mar.22 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
ANALYSIS OF RETRACTED PUBLICATIONS FROM KAZAKHSTAN
Koçyiğit, B. F., & Akyol, A. (2022) · Central Asian Journal of Medical Hypotheses and Ethics · doi:10.47316/cajmhe.2022.3.2.04 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Mehregan, M. (2019) · Journal of Korean Medical Science · doi:10.3346/jkms.2019.34.e41 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Abo‐elnour, D. E., Helal, M. M., Albalasy, A. A., Abdul‐Hafez, H. A., Abdelkader, A., El-Sherbini, E. R., Abdalla, Y. E., Abdelrahman, S. T., Salem, A. G., Sarhan, M. M., et al. (2025) · European Journal of Pediatrics · doi:10.1007/s00431-025-06578-8 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
da Silva, J. A. T., & Erfanmanesh, M. (2021) · European Science Editing · doi:10.3897/ese.2021.e60203 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Retractions in Scopus: An Engineering Journal Articles Investigation
Solomon, D., Heckman, C., & Hubbard, D. E. (2022) · Science & Technology Libraries · doi:10.1080/0194262x.2022.2098892 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
COPE Retraction guidelines. Version 2. November 2019
Editorial, A. (2022) · Science Editor and Publisher · doi:10.24069/sep-21-04 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Characteristics of retracted articles in ophthalmology
Er‐Reguyeg, Y., Boudry, C., & Mouriaux, F. (2024) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e35460 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Research Retraction and Its Communication
Xu, S. B., & Hu, G. (2023) · Advances in information quality and management · doi:10.4018/978-1-6684-7366-5.ch030 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Kubalica, T., & Łyszczarz, M. (2022) · Diametros · doi:10.33392/diam.1812 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Plagiarism, P-hacking, and Predatory Journals: Toxic Triple Ps of Scientific Publications
Raj, A. T., Panta, P., & Patil, S. (2019) · The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice · doi:10.5005/jcdp-20-2-129 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
When is lack of scientific integrity a reason for retracting a paper? A case study
Fiedorowicz, J. G., Levenson, J. L., & Leentjens, A. F. G. (2021) · Journal of Psychosomatic Research · doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2021.110412 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Schneider, J., Woods, N. D., & Proescholdt, R. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.21162748
Wiedermann, C. J. (2026) · Medical Ethics and Bioethics · doi:10.3390/meb1010003
- Authors
- Deculllier, E., & Maisonneuve, H.
- Venue
- BMC Research Notes
- Published
- 2018-07-17
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 490-490
- ISSN
- 1756-0500 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6050656
- OpenAlex
- W2884188503
- Cited by
- 27
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 7 · 2019: 4
- FWCI
- 5.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- BMC Research Notes (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Hospices Civils de Lyon
- 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
- retraction reasons, research misconduct, plagiarism, scientific fraud, duplicate publication, scientific publishing quality
- MeSH terms
- Periodicals as Topic, Publications, Retraction of Publication as Topic, Plagiarism, 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
