An exploratory analysis of 4844 withdrawn articles and their retraction notes.
Abstract
The objective of our study was to obtain an updated image of the dynamic of retractions and retraction notes, retraction reasons for questionable research and publication practices, countries producing retracted articles, and the scientific impact of retractions by studying 4844 PubMed indexed retracted articles published between 2009 and 2020 and their retraction notes. RESULTSMistakes/inconsistent data account for 32% of total retractions, followed by images(22,5%), plagiarism(13,7%) and overlap(11,5%). Thirty countries account for 94,79% of 4844 retractions. Top five are: China(32,78%), United States(18,84%), India(7,25%), Japan(4,37%) and Italy(3,75%). The total citations number for all articles is 140810(Google Scholar), 96000(Dimensions). Average exposure time(ET) is 28,89 months. Largest ET is for image retractions(49,3 months), lowest ET is for editorial errors(11,2 months). The impact of retracted research is higher for Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States, and other nine countries and lower for Pakistan, Turkey, Malaysia, and other six countries, including China. CONCLUSIONSMistakes and data inconsistencies represent the main retraction reason; images and ethical issues show a growing trend, while plagiarism and overlap still represent a significant problem. There is a steady increase in QRP and QPP article withdrawals. Retraction of articles seems to be a technology-dependent process. The number of citations of retracted articles shows a high impact of papers published by authors from certain countries. The number of retracted articles per country does not always accurately reflect the scientific impact of QRP/QPP articles. The country distribution of retraction reasons shows structural problems in the organization and quality control of scientific research, which have different images depending on geographical location, economic development, and cultural model.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papersReproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Does retraction after misconduct have an impact on citations? A pre-post study.
C. Candal-Pedreira, A. Ruano-Ravina, … M. Perez-Rios·bioRxiv·Aug 11, 2020
- A Multi-perspective Analysis of Retractions in Life Sciences
Bhumika Bhatt·ScientometricsPeer-reviewed·Mar 6, 2021
- Updated science-wide author databases of standardized citation indicators including retraction data
John P. A. Ioannidis, Angelo Maria Pezzullo, … Jeroen Baas·bioRxiv·Sep 16, 2024
- Correction of the scientific production: publisher performance evaluation using a dataset of 4844 PubMed retractions.
C. S. Toma, L. Padureanu, B. Toma·bioRxiv·Jan 23, 2022
- What difference do retractions make? An estimate of the epistemic impact of retractions on recent meta-analyses.
D. Fanelli, D. Moher·bioRxiv·Aug 13, 2019
- Gender imbalances of retraction prevalence among highly cited authors and among all authors
Stefania Boccia, Antonio Cristiano, … John P. A. Ioannidis·Research Integrity and Peer ReviewPeer-reviewed·Sep 30, 2026