ArticleJournal of Korean medical science2026
Retraction Analysis in Social Media Research: A Scopus Based Data From 2011 to 2025.
Article in Journal of Korean medical science, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSocial media has significantly impacted communication and information flow, making it a key academic topic today. As the field grows, the number of retractions has increased. This study aims to identify trends in research ethics by examining the bibliometric characteristics of retracted social media-related papers.
methodsThis descriptive study examined publications in the Scopus database labeled with "social media" and categorized under the "Retracted" document category. The study language was restricted to English, no time constraints were imposed, and all records from the initial retracted publication through 2025 were included. Distributions by country, institution, journal, author, keyword, year, and reasons for retraction were evaluated.
resultsA total of 141 retracted papers were detected. No significant increase in publication counts was detected from 2011 to 2025 (
conclusionThe findings reveal a significant increase in retractions within social media research, particularly in the 2020s. Retractions concentrated in certain countries and journals, primarily due to editorial investigation, suspicious results, and concerns related to referencing. The results underscore the field's persistent methodological and ethical challenges. Enhancing research integrity, editorial oversight, and transparency is crucial for mitigating ethical risks and improving the scientific reliability of future social media research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.