ReviewEuropean journal of pediatrics2025
Comprehensive bibliometric analysis of characteristics, patterns, and causes of retractions in pediatric literature.
Review in European journal of pediatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Retraction Analysis in Social Media Research: A Scopus Based Data From 2011 to 2025.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Article
- Retractions of publications on central nervous system tumors based on the Retraction Watch Database.Chinese neurosurgical journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to systematically identify the key characteristics of retracted articles in pediatric literature and explore the patterns and reasons of pediatric retraction from 1995 to 2024. We searched PubMed and Retraction Watch databases to identify all retracted publications in the field of pediatrics. After the screening process, data were extracted into Excel. Statistical analysis was conducted using Jamovi and Excel. A correlation matrix was used for the important retraction-related factors. After screening, 590 unique retracted pediatric articles were included, with most of them, 572 (96.9%), having retraction notices available; 516 (87.5%) published as open access; 433 (73.4%) from Asia-mostly China; 348 (59%) retracted by the publisher; 301 (51.0%) published by Hindawi; 275 (46.6%) observational studies; and 221 (37.5%) retracted due to misconduct. Articles with four authors showed the highest retraction rate, and the retraction rate generally decreased as the number of authors increased. Most retractions occurred in 2023. The most common pediatric age group included in the retracted papers was children. The median H-index of authors of retracted papers was 8 for first authors and 10 for senior authors. The median time from submission to acceptance of retracted papers was 50 days and that from publication to retraction was 15 months. Additionally, time to retraction was positively correlated with the journal's impact factor (r = 0.106, p = 0.015) and the citation count (r = 0.213, p < 0.001) but showed no significant correlation with time to acceptance (r = - 0.019, p = 0.675).
conclusionThe increasing number of retracted pediatric papers reflects a growing concern with a complex pattern and various determinants. Researchers and publishers should adopt strong regulations and guidelines to improve the integrity of scientific research, especially pediatric research. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Retractions in biomedical research have been increasing over the past decades, often due to research misconduct, plagiarism, or data fabrication. • Previous studies have analyzed retraction patterns across several medical specialties, but pediatric research remains underexplored despite its ethical and clinical sensitivity. WHAT IS NEW: • This is the most comprehensive analysis of retracted publications in pediatric literature, covering 590 articles from 1995 to 2024 and revealing distinct geographic, temporal, and publisher- and author-related patterns. • The study highlights a strong dominance of retractions from Asia-especially China-and shows that research misconduct and peer-review manipulation are the leading causes, underscoring the urgent need for stricter integrity measures in pediatric research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41206416What 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.