Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42065765›Full record

ReviewNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2026

Scientific retractions: causes, processes, and implications for research integrity.

Louie Giray, Bench Fabros, Jane Xavierine

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Louie GirayDepartment of Liberal Arts, School of Foundational Studies and Education, Mapua University, Manila, Philippines.
Bench FabrosLaboratory for Teaching and Learning, University Science High School, Central Luzon State University, Nueva Ecija, Philippines. bench_fabros@clsu.edu.ph.
Jane XavierineINTI International University, Nilai, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Biomedical ResearchRetraction of Publication as TopicScientific MisconductHumansBibliometricsPaper millsPharmacologyResearch integrityRetractionScientific misconduct

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.