Retraction and correction of scientific articles due to conflicts of interest: a cross‑sectional analysis of the Retraction Watch database.

backgroundConflicts of interest (CoI) can undermine trust in scientific publishing, yet empirical evidence on how often CoI lead to editorial action and how journals respond remains limited. This study aimed to characterise the frequency, patterns, and editorial handling of CoI‑related notices in the scholarly literature using an openly available, multidisciplinary dataset.

methodsWe conducted a descriptive cross‑sectional analysis of publicly available records from the Retraction Watch (RW) database, accessed via Crossref, from inception to 23 April 2026. All editorial notices in which CoI was explicitly mentioned as the sole or one of several stated reasons were included, encompassing retractions, corrections, expressions of concern, and reinstatements. For each record, we extracted article and notice dates, article type, scientific field, country of the corresponding author, number of authors and institutions, publisher, and all stated reasons for the notice. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and bootstrap‑based confidence intervals.

resultsWe identified 886 CoI‑related records (748 retractions, 39 corrections, 97 expressions of concern, and 2 reinstatements). CoI was the sole stated reason in 95 cases (10.7%), including 32 retractions, 11 corrections, and 52 expressions of concern; in the remaining notices, CoI most commonly co‑occurred with concerns such as compromised peer review, authorship or affiliation problems, journal or institutional investigations, and broader ethical violations. The median time from publication to editorial action was longest for expressions of concern and shortest for corrections, with wide variability across records and notice types. CoI‑related notices were concentrated in basic life, biomedical, and health sciences, and were unevenly distributed across high‑output countries and a small number of large publishers, particularly open‑access outlets. Most affected articles were original research papers with multi‑author, multi‑institution teams. Among articles with determinable author gender, both first and last authors were more often male than female, although these patterns were exploratory and lacked a baseline comparator.

conclusionsEditorial actions explicitly linked to CoI remain relatively uncommon compared with the broader volume of retractions and corrections, and CoI are rarely cited in isolation. The frequent co‑occurrence of CoI with other forms of misconduct or procedural problems suggests that undisclosed or poorly managed CoI often signal deeper weaknesses in disclosure practices, editorial oversight, and research governance rather than isolated administrative lapses. Strengthening CoI policies, transparency, verification mechanisms, and linked metadata systems may help detect problems earlier and support more consistent, graduated editorial responses.