ReviewCurrent sociology. La Sociologie contemporaine2017
The visibility of scientific misconduct: A review of the literature on retracted journal articles.
Review in Current sociology. La Sociologie contemporaine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Research misconduct in health and life sciences research: A systematic review of retracted literature from Brazilian institutions.PloS one · 2019Pooled it
- Retractions in tuberculosis research: analyzing patterns, reasons, and temporal trends from 1993 to 2023.Archives of microbiology · 2026Article
- Safeguarding WHO guideline recommendations through strengthened scientific integrity to advance global health.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Analysis of Retracted Publications in the Diabetes Literature.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2026Article
- Article
- Analysis of Retractions in Nursing from Publications Between 2000 and 2024: A Bibliometric Analysis Using Retraction Watch.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2025Article
- Generative artificial intelligence tools in journal article preparation: A preliminary catalog of ethical considerations, opportunities, and pitfalls.JDS communications · 2025Article
- Plagiarism in Publications: All about Being Fair!The Indian journal of radiology & imaging · 2025Article
- Opening the black box of article retractions: exploring the causes and consequences of data management errors.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- Negative performance feedback from algorithms or humans? effect of medical researchers' algorithm aversion on scientific misconduct.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- What do Retraction Notices Reveal About Institutional Investigations into Allegations Underlying Retractions?Science and engineering ethics · 2023Article
- Bounce Forward Better: Geriatric and Gerontological Research in the Post-pandemic Future.Annals of geriatric medicine and research · 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
- Comprehensive analysis of retracted journal articles in the field of veterinary medicine and animal health.BMC veterinary research · 2022Article
- Retracted publications in pharmacy systematic reviews.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2022Article
- Deceiving scientific research, misconduct events are possibly a more common practice than foreseen.Environmental sciences Europe · 2022Article
- Retractions, Fake Peer Reviews, and Paper Mills.Journal of Korean medical science · 2021Article
- A scoping review of the literature featuring research ethics and research integrity cases.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- Correction notices in psychology: impactful or inconsequential?Royal Society open science · 2020Article
- Street research market: dealing with scientific misconduct in Iran.BMC medical ethics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Retractions of scientific articles are becoming the most relevant institution for making sense of scientific misconduct. An increasing number of retracted articles, mainly attributed to misconduct, is currently providing a new empirical basis for research about scientific misconduct. This article reviews the relevant research literature from an interdisciplinary context. Furthermore, the results from these studies are contextualized sociologically by asking how scientific misconduct is made visible through retractions. This study treats retractions as an emerging institution that renders scientific misconduct visible, thus, following up on the sociology of deviance and its focus on visibility. The article shows that retractions, by highlighting individual cases of misconduct and general policies for preventing misconduct while obscuring the actors and processes through which retractions are effected, produce highly fragmented patterns of visibility. These patterns resemble the bifurcation in current justice systems.
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.