ReviewNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2026
Scientific retractions: causes, processes, and implications for research integrity.
Review in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Retractions serve as a critical self-corrective mechanism within the scientific enterprise, yet their implementation remains inconsistent and unevenly consequential across disciplines and institutions. This paper examines the causes, patterns, processes, and impacts of retractions. This paper accentuates that the retractions arise from a complex interplay of individual misconduct, systemic publication pressures, inadequate peer review, and cultural conditions that discourage honest error correction. Retraction notices are found to be frequently incomplete, poorly disseminated, and inconsistently linked across bibliographic databases, allowing flawed findings to persist in citation networks long after formal withdrawal. The paper further demonstrates that retraction impacts fall disproportionately on early-career researchers, particularly those in developing countries. These findings carry relevance for journals such as Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology, which publishes translational research with direct clinical and regulatory implications. The paper also is aligned with the goals of United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 3 (good health and well-being) and SDG 16 (peace, justice, and strong institutions), as strengthening scientific integrity infrastructure supports both evidence-based healthcare and accountable research governance. Concrete reforms are proposed, including standardized retraction notices and open-access policies, to ensure that retractions fulfill their promise as instruments of scientific self-correction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42065765What 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.