Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42587258›Full record

ReviewJournal of bioethical inquiry2026

Retractions in Psychology and Psychiatry in Web of Science : A Bioethical Perspective.

Oriana Arellano-Faúndez, Chiara Saracini, Maria T Muñoz-Quezada

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 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.

Oriana Arellano-FaúndezFacultad de Ciencia de La Salud, Universidad Católica del Maule, Avenida San Miguel, 3605, 3460000, Talca, Maule Region, Chile.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3683-9209
Chiara SaraciniThe Neuropsychology and Cognitive Neuroscience Research Center (CINPSI Neurocog), Facultad de Ciencias de La Salud, Universidad Católica del Maule, Avenida San Miguel, 3605, 3460000, Talca, Maule Region, Chile. csaracini@ucm.cl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1594-7382
Maria T Muñoz-QuezadaThe Neuropsychology and Cognitive Neuroscience Research Center (CINPSI Neurocog), Facultad de Ciencias de La Salud, Universidad Católica del Maule, Avenida San Miguel, 3605, 3460000, Talca, Maule Region, Chile.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8008-8625

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A steadfast commitment to scientific integrity should be a fundamental quality of all researchers and is central to their pursuit of knowledge for societal benefit. Failure to uphold this integrity can have serious consequences for the researchers involved and the wider community, as demonstrated by scientific publications that report data or results derived from questionable and unethical practices. This study aimed to evaluate retraction rates in scientific literature within the fields of psychiatry and psychology. Using a bibliometric approach, the study analysed retracted articles indexed in the Web of Science over the past ten years, identifying integrity issues in the fields of psychology and psychiatry and categorizing retractions by year, country, journal, category, and index. The results show that, although the number of retractions in psychology and psychiatry has increased, they still represent a smaller proportion of the total number of retractions than other scientific disciplines. In many cases, the reason for retraction is scientific misconduct (65.56 per cent), with only 23.33 per cent of retractions initiated for honest errors. Most of the time (52.22 per cent), editors initiate the retraction. We discuss these results, paying particular attention to the direct and indirect harm caused to individuals in line with the ethical principle of non-maleficence. This highlights the importance of avoiding the citation of retracted publications as evidence in decision-making processes related to mental health interventions.

Indexed as

BioethicsPsychiatryPsychologyRetractionsScientific integrityScientific 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.