Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2023 Oct 23;38(41):e333.
doi: 10.3346/jkms.2023.38.e333.

Causes for Retraction in the Biomedical Literature: A Systematic Review of Studies of Retraction Notices

Soo Young Hwang  1 , Dong Keon Yon  2 , Seung Won Lee  3 , Min Seo Kim  4 , Jong Yeob Kim  1 , Lee Smith  5 , Ai Koyanagi  6   7 , Marco Solmi  8   9   10   11   12 , Andre F Carvalho  13 , Eunyoung Kim  14   15 , Jae Il Shin  16   17   18 , John P A Ioannidis  19
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Causes for Retraction in the Biomedical Literature: A Systematic Review of Studies of Retraction Notices

Soo Young Hwang et al. J Korean Med Sci. .

Abstract

Background: Many studies have evaluated the prevalence of different reasons for retraction in samples of retraction notices. We aimed to perform a systematic review of such empirical studies of retraction causes.

Methods: The PubMed/MEDLINE database and the Embase database were searched in June 2023. Eligible studies were those containing sufficient data on the reasons for retraction across samples of examined retracted notices.

Results: A 11,181 potentially eligible items were identified, and 43 studies of retractions were included in this systematic review. Studies limited to retraction notices of a specific subspecialty or country, journal/publication type are emerging since 2015. We noticed that the reasons for retraction are becoming more specific and more diverse. In a meta-analysis of 17 studies focused on different subspecialties, misconduct was responsible for 60% (95% confidence interval [CI], 53-67%) of all retractions while error and publication issues contributed to 17% (95% CI, 12-22%) and 9% (95% CI, 6-13%), respectively. The end year of the retraction period in all included studies and the proportion of misconduct presented a weak positive association (coefficient = 1.3% per year, P = 0.002).

Conclusion: Misconduct seems to be the most frequently recorded reason for retraction across empirical analyses of retraction notices, but other reasons are not negligible. Greater specificity of causes and standardization is needed in retraction notices.

Keywords: Misconduct; Retraction; Retraction of Publication; Withdrawal.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare Marco Solmi received honoraria/has been a consultant for Angelini, Lundbeck, Otsuka.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1. Bubble plot of all forty-three studies on retracted publications included for review.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2. Forest plots of reason for retraction in studies categorized by subspecialties. (A) Forest plot of the proportion of misconduct for retraction in studies categorized by subspecialties. (B) Forest plot of the proportion of error for retraction in studies categorized by subspecialties. (C) Forest plot of the proportion of publication issues for retraction in studies categorized by subspecialties.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3. Meta-regression plot of the proportion of misconduct for retraction in studies categorized by subspecialties (left) and all included studies (right).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Cokol M, Ozbay F, Rodriguez-Esteban R. Retraction rates are on the rise. EMBO Rep. 2008;9(1):2. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Vuong QH, La VP, Hồ MT, Vuong TT, Ho MT. Characteristics of retracted articles based on retraction data from online sources through February 2019. Sci Ed. 2020;7(1):34–44.
    1. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109(42):17028–17033. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fanelli D, Ioannidis JP, Goodman S. Improving the integrity of published science: an expanded taxonomy of retractions and corrections. Eur J Clin Invest. 2018;48(4):e12898 - PubMed
    1. Yeo-Teh NSL, Tang BL. An alarming retraction rate for scientific publications on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Account Res. 2021;28(1):47–53. - PubMed