ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2018
Exploring the characteristics, global distribution and reasons for retraction of published articles involving human research participants: a literature survey.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Causes for Retraction in the Biomedical Literature: A Systematic Review of Studies of Retraction Notices.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Pooled it
- Retraction and correction of scientific articles due to conflicts of interest: a cross‑sectional analysis of the Retraction Watch database.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Retractions in Otolaryngology Publications.JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery · 2025Article
- Methodological and Statistical Considerations for Cross-Sectional, Case-Control, and Cohort Studies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- COVID-19 retracted publications on retraction watch: A systematic survey of their pre-prints and citations.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Are female scientists underrepresented in self-retractions for honest error?Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2023Article
- What can we learn from retracted studies in the nursing field in the last 20 years? Findings from a scoping review.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2022Article
- Comprehensive analysis of retracted journal articles in the field of veterinary medicine and animal health.BMC veterinary research · 2022Article
- An analysis of retractions in neurosurgery and allied clinical and basic science specialties.Acta neurochirurgica · 2021Article
- Building Safe Didactic Dialogues for Action Model: Mobilizing Community with Micronesian Islanders.Asian/Pacific Island nursing journal · 2020Article
- Post retraction citations among manuscripts reporting a radiology-imaging diagnostic method.PloS one · 2019Article
- Challenges of Connecting Chemistry to Pharmacology: Perspectives from Curating the IUPHAR/BPS Guide to PHARMACOLOGY.ACS omega · 2018Review
- Publish first, retract later. Is it time for introspection?Medical journal, Armed Forces India · 2018Article
- Interactive CO-learning for Research Engagement and Education (I-COREE) Curriculum to Build Capacity Between Community Partners and Academic Researchers.Asian/Pacific Island nursing journal · 2018Article
- Trends and Characteristics of Retracted Articles in the Smoking Field: An Observational Study.Open respiratory archivesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimArticle retraction is a measure taken by journals or authors where there is evidence of research misconduct or error, redundancy, plagiarism or unethical research. Recently, the retraction of scientific publications has been on the rise. In this survey, we aimed to describe the characteristics and distribution of retracted articles and the reasons for retractions.
methodsWe searched retracted articles on the PubMed database and Retraction Watch website from 1980 to February 2016. The primary outcomes were the characteristics and distribution of retracted articles and the reasons for retractions. The secondary outcomes included how article retractions were handled by journals and how to improve the journal practices toward article retractions.
resultsWe included 1,339 retracted articles. Most retracted articles had six authors or fewer. Article retraction was most common in the USA (26%), Japan (11%) and Germany (10%). The main reasons for article retraction were misconduct (51%, n = 685) and error (14%, n = 193). There were 66% (n = 889) of retracted articles having male senior or corresponding authors. Of the articles retracted after August 2010, 63% (n = 567) retractions were reported on Retraction Watch. Large discrepancies were observed in the ways that different journals handled article retractions. For instance, articles were completely withdrawn from some journals, while in others, articles were still available with no indication of retraction. Likewise, some retraction notices included a detailed account of the events that led to article retraction, while others only consisted of a statement indicating the article retraction.
conclusionThe characteristics, geographic distribution and reasons for retraction of published articles involving human research participants were examined in this survey. More efforts are needed to improve the consistency and transparency of journal practices toward article retractions.
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.