ArticleBMC research notes2018
Correcting the literature: Improvement trends seen in contents of retraction notices.
Article in BMC research notes, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 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
- Comprehensive bibliometric analysis of characteristics, patterns, and causes of retractions in pediatric literature.European journal of pediatrics · 2025Review
- Characteristics of retracted articles in ophthalmology.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Analysis of Retracted Publications in Medical Literature Due to Ethical Violations.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Article
- Reducing the Inadvertent Spread of Retracted Science: recommendations from the RISRS report.Research integrity and peer review · 2022Article
- Comprehensive analysis of retracted journal articles in the field of veterinary medicine and animal health.BMC veterinary research · 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
- Plagiarism detection and prevention: a primer for researchers.Reumatologia · 2021Article
- Ethical Reviewers are Essential for Scholarly Journals for Timely Processing of Submissions and Avoiding Retractions.Journal of Korean medical science · 2019Article
- Post retraction citations among manuscripts reporting a radiology-imaging diagnostic method.PloS one · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo analyse retraction notices from 2016 and compare their quality to the 2008 notices.
resultsFrom 146 retractions retrieved, only 123 were included, of which, a clear reason for retraction was available for 122 (99.2%) and no reason was given for one (0.8%). The main reasons for retraction were mistakes 26.0% (n = 32), fraud 26.0% (n = 32), plagiarism 20.3% (n = 25), and overlap 8.1% (n = 10). In 100 (81.3%) cases, a mention of retraction was available on the original paper, in 15 (12.2%) there was no mention of retraction, and 8 (6.5%) papers were deleted. Compared to the previous cohorts, management of retraction has improved because 99.2% provided a clear reason, and 81.3% of original articles were available with a 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.