ReviewJournal of bioethical inquiry2026
Retractions in Psychology and Psychiatry in Web of Science : A Bioethical Perspective.
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.
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
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
Identifiers
42587258What 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.