ArticlePloS one2013
Why has the number of scientific retractions increased?
Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 129 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
129 citing papers in PubMed, 5 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
- Surveillance of clinical research integrity in medically assisted reproduction: a systematic review of retracted publications.Frontiers in public health · 2023Pooled it
- Temporal Trends, Characteristics, and Citations of Retracted Articles in Cardiovascular Medicine.JAMA network open · 2021Pooled it
- Retracted publications and their citation in dental literature: A systematic review.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2020Pooled it
- Research misconduct in health and life sciences research: A systematic review of retracted literature from Brazilian institutions.PloS one · 2019Pooled it
- Retractions in the field of pregnancy and pain: bibliometric characteristics, reasons, and trends.Rheumatology international · 2026Article
- What Retractions Tell Us About Research Integrity in Mexican Academia.Developing world bioethics · 2026Article
- Statistical Competence and Editorial Policies in Biomedical Publications.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Review
- Retracted Publications Related to Statistics: A Scopus-Based Bibliometric Analysis.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Article
- Research integrity within systematic reviews: investigating the prevalence of studies by authors with multiple retraction histories in Cochrane reviews.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Review
- Retractions of publications in radiomics: An underestimated problem?European radiology · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence to enhance research integrity in evidence-based medicine: toward scalable trustworthiness assessment.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 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
- Fifty Years of Retracted Medical Publications From 1975 to 2024: A Comprehensive Analysis of Trends, Reasons, and Countries Using the Retraction Watch Database.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Article
- Comprehensive bibliometric analysis of characteristics, patterns, and causes of retractions in pediatric literature.European journal of pediatrics · 2025Review
- Analysis of Retractions in Nursing from Publications Between 2000 and 2024: A Bibliometric Analysis Using Retraction Watch.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2025Article
- Critical reflections on "Analyzing Retraction trends in urology: A comprehensive study over the last decade" by Yanes et al.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- Factors related to the severity of research misconduct administrative actions: An analysis of office of research integrity case summaries from 1993 to 2023.Accountability in research · 2025Article
- What Can We Learn from the Retraction of Medical Articles.Medical science educator · 2025Article
- Data transparency and reproducibility in health research: bridging the gap for early-career researchers.Frontiers in antibiotics · 2025Article
69 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe number of retracted scientific publications has risen sharply, but it is unclear whether this reflects an increase in publication of flawed articles or an increase in the rate at which flawed articles are withdrawn. METHODS AND
findingsWe examined the interval between publication and retraction for 2,047 retracted articles indexed in PubMed. Time-to-retraction (from publication of article to publication of retraction) averaged 32.91 months. Among 714 retracted articles published in or before 2002, retraction required 49.82 months; among 1,333 retracted articles published after 2002, retraction required 23.82 months (p<0.0001). This suggests that journals are retracting papers more quickly than in the past, although recent articles requiring retraction may not have been recognized yet. To test the hypothesis that time-to-retraction is shorter for articles that receive careful scrutiny, time-to-retraction was correlated with journal impact factor (IF). Time-to-retraction was significantly shorter for high-IF journals, but only ∼1% of the variance in time-to-retraction was explained by increased scrutiny. The first article retracted for plagiarism was published in 1979 and the first for duplicate publication in 1990, showing that articles are now retracted for reasons not cited in the past. The proportional impact of authors with multiple retractions was greater in 1972-1992 than in the current era (p<0.001). From 1972-1992, 46.0% of retracted papers were written by authors with a single retraction; from 1993 to 2012, 63.1% of retracted papers were written by single-retraction authors (p<0.001).
conclusionsThe increase in retracted articles appears to reflect changes in the behavior of both authors and institutions. Lower barriers to publication of flawed articles are seen in the increase in number and proportion of retractions by authors with a single retraction. Lower barriers to retraction are apparent in an increase in retraction for "new" offenses such as plagiarism and a decrease in the time-to-retraction of flawed work.
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.