ArticleBMC research notes2013
Visibility of retractions: a cross-sectional one-year study.
Article in BMC research notes, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Causes for Retraction in the Biomedical Literature: A Systematic Review of Studies of Retraction Notices.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Pooled it
- Research misconduct in health and life sciences research: A systematic review of retracted literature from Brazilian institutions.PloS one · 2019Pooled it
- Critical reflections on "Analyzing Retraction trends in urology: A comprehensive study over the last decade" by Yanes et al.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- Reducing the Inadvertent Spread of Retracted Science: recommendations from the RISRS report.Research integrity and peer review · 2022Article
- Keep calm and carry on: moral panic, predatory publishers, peer review, and the emperor's new clothes.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2022Article
- Continued use of retracted papers: Temporal trends in citations and (lack of) awareness of retractions shown in citation contexts in biomedicine.Quantitative science studies · 2022Article
- A Survey of Iranian Retracted Publications Indexed in PubMed.Iranian journal of public health · 2021Article
- Article
- Article
- Correcting the literature: Improvement trends seen in contents of retraction notices.BMC research notes · 2018Article
- The visibility of scientific misconduct: A review of the literature on retracted journal articles.Current sociology. La Sociologie contemporaine · 2017Review
- A survey of retracted articles in dentistry.BMC research notes · 2017Article
- Retractions in cancer research: a systematic survey.Research integrity and peer review · 2017Article
- Concern noted: A descriptive study of editorial expressions of concern in PubMed and PubMed Central.Research integrity and peer review · 2017Article
- Perpetuation of Retracted Publications Using the Example of the Scott S. Reuben Case: Incidences, Reasons and Possible Improvements.Science and engineering ethics · 2016Article
- Tools and techniques for computational reproducibility.GigaScience · 2016Review
- Preserving the Integrity of Citations and References by All Stakeholders of Science Communication.Journal of Korean medical science · 2015Review
- What studies of retractions tell us.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2014Article
- A comprehensive analysis of articles retracted between 2004 and 2013 from biomedical literature - a call for reforms.Journal of traditional and complementary medicine · 2014Article
- The urge to publish more and its consequences.Daru : journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRetraction in Medline medical literature experienced a tenfold increase between 1999 and 2009, however retraction remains a rare event since it represents 0.02% of publications. Retractions used to be handled following informal practices until they were formalized in 2009 by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The objective of our study was to describe the compliance to these guidelines.
methodsAll retractions published in 2008 were identified using the Medline publication type "retraction of publication". The notices of retraction and the original articles were retrieved. For each retraction, we identified the reason for retraction, the country of affiliation of the first author, the time to retraction, the impact factor of the journal and the mention of retraction on the original article.
resultsOverall, 244 retractions were considered for analysis. Formal retraction notices could not be retrieved for 9. Of the 235 retractions available (96%), the reason was not detailed for 21 articles (9%). The most cited reasons were mistakes (28%), plagiarism (20%), fraud (14%) and overlap (11%). The original paper or its location was found for 233 retractions (95%). Of these, 22% were available with no mention of the retraction.
conclusionA standard retraction form could be helpful, with a check list of major reason, leaving the editor free to provide the reader with any further information. Original articles should remain available with a clear mention of the retraction.
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.