Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37402081›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2023

What do Retraction Notices Reveal About Institutional Investigations into Allegations Underlying Retractions?

Shaoxiong Brian Xu, Natalie Evans, Guangwei Hu, Lex Bouter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Why Universities Should Make Misconduct Reports Public.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2025
    Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Shaoxiong Brian XuSchool of Foreign Studies, Huanggang Normal University, Huanggang, China. shaoxiong.xu@outlook.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8230-8970
Natalie EvansDepartment of Ethics, Law, and Humanities, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7124-9282
Guangwei HuDepartment of English and Communication, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2297-4784
Lex BouterDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2659-5482

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Academic journal publications may be retracted following institutional investigations that confirm allegations of research misconduct. Retraction notices can provide insight into the role institutional investigations play in the decision to retract a publication. Through a content analysis of 7,318 retraction notices published between 1927 and 2019 and indexed by the Web of Science, we found that most retraction notices (73.7%) provided no information about institutional investigations that may have led to retractions. A minority of the retraction notices (26.3%) mentioned an institutional investigation either by journal authorities (12.1%), research performing organizations (10.3%), joint institutions (1.9%), research integrity and ethics governing bodies (1.0%), third-party institutions (0.5%), unspecified institutions (0.4%), or research funding organizations (0.1%). Comparing retraction notices issued before and after the introduction of retraction guidelines by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in 2009 revealed that those published after the guidelines' publication were more likely to report investigations by journal authorities. Comparing retraction notices from different disciplines revealed that those from social sciences and the humanities were more likely to disclose investigations by research performing organizations than those from biomedical and natural sciences. Based on these findings, we suggest that the COPE retraction guidelines in the future make it mandatory to disclose in retraction notices institutional investigations leading to retractions.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchScientific MisconductEthics CommitteesGroup ProcessesSocial SciencesAllegationInstitutional investigationResearch integrity and ethicsResearch misconductRetraction notice

Identifiers

PMID37402081
PMCPMC10319669

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.