ArticleACS omega2023
Analysis of Retracted Manuscripts in Chemistry: Errors vs Misconduct.
Article in ACS omega, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Raw Data as the Verification Layer: Why AI-Driven Materials Discovery Needs Experimental Infrastructure.ACS omega · 2026Article
- Woodward and Hoffmann on Secondary Orbital Interactions. How to Make a Fine Two-Course Meal from Leftovers.Chemical record (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Review
- Article
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
In this Viewpoint we discuss Chemistry manuscripts retracted during the 2001-2021 period (a total of 1292 journal articles retrieved from the Retraction Watch database). We showed that 58.5% of Chemistry manuscripts were retracted due to misconduct; of them, 40.5% of retractions were due to self-plagiarism and 36% due to fraud. Errors and concerns unrelated to misconduct constituted 26% of all retractions. Retracted manuscripts had a median retraction time of 1.7 years and peer-review time of 71 days (but only 43 days for fraudulent manuscripts).
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.