ArticleInfection and immunity2011
Retracted science and the retraction index.
Article in Infection and immunity, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 110 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
110 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review of ENT retractions.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence in the retraction spotlight: trends, causes and consequences of withdrawn AI literature through a systematic bibliometric review.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2025Pooled it
- Investigate the relationship between the retraction reasons and the quality of methodology in non-Cochrane retracted systematic reviews: a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Publication retraction in spine surgery: a systematic review.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2023Pooled it
- Surveillance of clinical research integrity in medically assisted reproduction: a systematic review of retracted publications.Frontiers in public health · 2023Pooled it
- Reference quality of OpenEvidence across five medical specialties.npj health systems · 2026Article
- Discovery Stack Pilot demonstrates the feasibility and outcomes of a scientist-designed peer-review model that separates quality and impact.PLoS biology · 2026Article
- Structure without semantics: no evidence for bonobo compositionality in Berthet et al. (2025).PeerJ · 2026Article
- Reasons for Retraction of Biomedical Articles Written by Eastern Mediterranean and Turkish Authors; A Comprehensive Cross-Sectional Study During 2010-2019 : Short title: Reasons for Retraction of Biomedical Articles.Galen medical journal · 2026Article
- Can I trust this paper?Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Review
- Predicting retracted research: a dataset and machine learning approaches.Research integrity and peer review · 2025Article
- What Can We Learn from the Retraction of Medical Articles.Medical science educator · 2025Article
- Article
- Publication integrity: what is it, why does it matter, how it is safeguarded and how could we do better?Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand · 2025Review
- Prisoner's science.mBio · 2024Article
- Is biomedical research self-correcting? Modelling insights on the persistence of spurious science.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- Analytical code sharing practices in biomedical research.PeerJ. Computer science · 2024Article
- Analytical code sharing practices in biomedical research.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
- Teaching students to R3eason, not merely to solve problem sets: The role of philosophy and visual data communication in accessible data science education.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
- Retraction of Nursing scientific publications.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2023Article
50 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Articles may be retracted when their findings are no longer considered trustworthy due to scientific misconduct or error, they plagiarize previously published work, or they are found to violate ethical guidelines. Using a novel measure that we call the "retraction index," we found that the frequency of retraction varies among journals and shows a strong correlation with the journal impact factor. Although retractions are relatively rare, the retraction process is essential for correcting the literature and maintaining trust in the scientific process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.