Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42706687›Full record

ArticleStem cells translational medicine2026

Why retracted articles can have an influential afterlife-and what to do about it.

Jeremy Snyder, Leigh Turner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Stem cells translational medicine, 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

2 authors.

Jeremy SnyderFaculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC V5A1S6, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8236-2923
Leigh TurnerDepartment of Health, Society, and Behavior, University of California IrvineIrvine, CA 92697, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7283-6809

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Retractions of published journal articles are an increasingly common means by which the research community ensures the quality and integrity of publications and addresses research misconduct missed during pre-publication peer review. Retractions are intended to notify the public of issues that undermine the integrity of these publications so that readers will not rely on their findings and conclusions. Continued citation and other uses of these publications without acknowledging their retracted status are therefore problematic and suggest shortcomings in retraction processes. In this commentary, we use the examples of retracted articles published in this journal to outline ways in which retracted articles can maintain an influential afterlife in the academic literature, online materials from non-profit organizations and private businesses, and responses from generative artificial intelligence. Given that this ongoing influence compounds the harms of these publications, we recommend changes in how publishers manage article retractions. These changes include ensuring that article retraction notices are maintained when journal publishing agreements change, increasing the visibility of retractions, and notifying scholars and members of the public when an article they reference is retracted. While these changes will make article retractions more effective, there is a continued need to limit the publication of studies that violate the requirements of research integrity.

Indexed as

Periodicals as TopicPublishingRetraction of Publication as TopicScientific MisconductHumansresearch integrityresearch misconductretractionstem cells

Identifiers

PMID42706687
PMCPMC13549933

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.