ArticleJournal of Korean medical science2025
Fifty Years of Retracted Medical Publications From 1975 to 2024: A Comprehensive Analysis of Trends, Reasons, and Countries Using the Retraction Watch Database.
Article in Journal of Korean medical science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Retractions in the field of pregnancy and pain: bibliometric characteristics, reasons, and trends.Rheumatology international · 2026Article
- Retractions of publications on central nervous system tumors based on the Retraction Watch Database.Chinese neurosurgical journal · 2026Article
- Statistical Competence and Editorial Policies in Biomedical Publications.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Review
- Letter to the Editor: Citations of Retracted Publications Should Be Discounted From One's Bibliometric Indicator.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence as a Safeguard for Clinical Scientific Integrity: A Human-AI Hybrid Model for Medical Peer Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Data Governance Lessons From an Unvalidated Dataset.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Responsible research evaluation: integrating quality, leadership, and integrity in national systems. The case of Peru.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2026Article
- Ethics beyond Plagiarism.Contemporary clinical dentistryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundScientific medical research has progressed tremendously during the last 50 years, but concerns about research integrity, publishing ethics, and retraction trends have grown. Retractions are essential for revising the scientific record and maintaining credibility, yet an extensive long-term assessment of retracted medical publications is limited.
methodsWe performed a descriptive analysis of 50 years of retracted medical publications from the Retraction Watch Database. Data were refined to encompass solely medicine-related retractions, omitting corrections, expressions of concern, and reinstatements. We classified retraction reasons into 68 categories, emphasizing the top 10 most frequently encountered reasons. Temporal trends were evaluated employing semi-logarithmic linear regression models. The geographical distribution and journal-specific retractions were also examined.
resultsAn analysis was conducted on 16,041 retracted medical documents from 1975 to 2024. The leading reasons for retraction included data concerns (31.47%), fraud (11.37%), peer review issues (11.21%), referencing issues (7.54%), and ethical violations (7.09%). The highest number of retractions was noted in
conclusionThe rising amount of retractions underscores heightened scrutiny and enhanced detection techniques while highlighting ongoing research integrity issues. Data integrity, fraudulent activities, and compromised peer review are significant issues. Fortifying editorial policies, augmenting transparency, and bolstering research ethics education are essential for reducing misconduct and maintaining the integrity of medical papers.
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.