Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Retraction of Scientific Papers: Types of Retraction, Consequences, and Impacts

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Integrity of Scientific Research

Abstract

The increase in the retraction of scientific papers is a worrying phenomenon that has been the subject of study in recent years. Of equal concern is the rise in scientific misconduct as the chief cause of retraction of publications, as well as the fact that retracted publications continue to be cited after their retraction. It is essential that retracted publications be correctly identified and monitored, in order to prevent the perpetuation of invalid results in the scientific literature, which can have consequences for both the scientific community and the general population.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. COPE Council (2019) COPE retraction guidelines. Committee on Publication Ethics. https://publicationethics.org/retraction-guidelines. Accessed 27 Jan 2021

  2. Wager E, Barbour V, Yentis S, Kleinert S (2009) Retractions: guidance from the committee on publication ethics (COPE). Croat Med J 50:532–535

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Van Noorden R (2011) Science publishing: the trouble with retractions. Nature 478:26–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Campos-Varela I, Ruano-Raviña A (2019) Misconduct as the main cause for retraction. A descriptive study of retracted publications and their authors. Gac Sanit 33:356–360

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A (2012) Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:17028–17033

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Rawat S, Meena S (2014) Publish or perish: where are we heading? J Res Med Sci Off J Isfahan Univ Med Sci 19:87–89

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cokol M, Ozbay F, Rodriguez-Esteban R (2008) Retraction rates are on the rise. EMBO Rep 9:2–2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Olson CM (1990) Peer review of the biomedical literature. Am J Emerg Med 8:356–358

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Callaham ML (2003) Journal policy on ethics in scientific publication. Ann Emerg Med 41:82–89

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ali PA, Watson R (2016) Peer review and the publication process. Nurs Open 3:193–202

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. COPE (2021) Peer review processes. COPE. https://publicationethics.org/peerreview. Accessed 28 Jan 2021

  12. Klebel T, Reichmann S, Polka J, McDowell G, Penfold N, Hindle S et al (2020) Peer review and preprint policies are unclear at most major journals. PLoS One. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7577440/

  13. Picciotto MR (2020) Peer review week 2020: trust in peer review. J Neurosci 40:7378–7378

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Flanagin A, Fontanarosa PB, Bauchner H (2020) Preprints involving medical research—do the benefits outweigh the challenges? JAMA 324:1840–1843

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Walker R, Rocha da Silva P (2015) Emerging trends in peer review—a survey. Front Neurosci. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4444765/

  16. Kaufman KR, Malhi GS, Bhui KS (2019) When a corrigendum is not sufficient. BJPsych Open. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6611069/

  17. Mulligan A (2005) Is peer review in crisis? Oral Oncol 41:135–141

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Scott-Lichter D, The Editorial Policy Committee, Council of Science Editors (2012) CSE’s white paper on promoting integrity in scientific journal publications, 2012 update, 3rd edn. CSE, Wheat Ridge. http://academy.rasep.ru/images/documents/rukovodstva/White%20Paper_DOI_Rus.pdf. Accessed 28 Jan 2012

    Google Scholar 

  19. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf. Accessed 11 Feb 2021

  20. Casadevall A, Fang FC (2012) Reforming science: methodological and cultural reforms. Infect Immun 80:891–896

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. ORI (2005) Public health service (PHS) policies on research misconduct – 42 CFR part 93. https://ori.hhs.gov/FR_Doc_05-9643. Accessed 4 Feb 2021

  22. Fanelli D (2009) How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One 4:e5738

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Moylan EC, Kowalczuk MK (2016) Why articles are retracted: a retrospective cross-sectional study of retraction notices at BioMed Central. BMJ Open 6:e012047

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Furman JL, Jensen K, Murray F (2012) Governing knowledge in the scientific community: exploring the role of retractions in biomedicine. Res Policy 41:276–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Nath SB, Marcus SC, Druss BG (2006) Retractions in the research literature: misconduct or mistakes? Med J Aust 185:152–154

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Steen RG (2011) Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing? J Med Ethics 37:249–253

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Bonnet F, Samama CM (2012) Les cas de fraude dans les publications: de Darsee à Poldermans. Presse Med 41:816–820

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. White PF, Rosow CE, Shafer SL (2011) The Scott Reuben Saga: one last retraction. Anesth Analg 112:512–515

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Oransky AM& I (2015) How the biggest fabricator in science got caught. Nautilus. http://nautil.us/issue/24/error/how-the-biggest-fabricator-in-science-got-caught. Accessed 4 Feb 2021

  30. Palus AS (2015) Scott Reuben notches 25th retraction, for a letter to the editor. Retraction Watch. https://retractionwatch.com/2015/11/23/scott-reuben-notches-25th-retraction-for-a-letter-to-the-editor/. Accessed 4 Feb 2021

  31. Marcus AA (2020) A ‘very cautious’ process: journal retracts reviews by anesthesiologist found to have committed fraud a decade ago. Retraction Watch. https://retractionwatch.com/2020/05/19/a-very-cautious-process-journal-retracts-reviews-by-anesthesiologist-found-to-have-committed-fraud-a-decade-ago/. Accessed 4 Feb 2021

  32. Rao TSS, Andrade C (2011) The MMR vaccine and autism: sensation, refutation, retraction, and fraud. Indian J Psychiatry 53:95–96

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Suelzer EM, Deal J, Hanus KL, Ruggeri B, Sieracki R, Witkowski E (2019) Assessment of citations of the retracted article by Wakefield et al with fraudulent claims of an association between vaccination and autism. JAMA Netw Open 2(11):e1915552. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6902803/

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Lipworth W, Gentgall M, Kerridge I, Stewart C (2020) Science at warp speed: medical research, publication, and translation during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Bioethical Inq 17(4):555–561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Lu SF, Jin GZ, Uzzi B, Jones B (2013) The retraction penalty: evidence from the web of science. Sci Rep 3:3146

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Mistry V, Grey A, Bolland MJ (2019) Publication rates after the first retraction for biomedical researchers with multiple retracted publications. Account Res 26:277–287

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. McCook A (2016) No academic post for fraudster Diederik Stapel, after all. Retraction Watch. https://retractionwatch.com/2016/09/13/no-teaching-post-for-fraudster-diederik-stapel-after-all/. Accessed 18 Feb 2021

  38. Oransky AI (2020) Former Maryland researcher banned from federal funding for misconduct. Retraction Watch. https://retractionwatch.com/2020/08/14/former-maryland-researcher-banned-from-federal-funding-for-misconduct/. Accessed 11 Feb 2021

  39. Marcus AA (2011) Nursing researcher Scott weber draws penalties from ORI in plagiarism, fraud scandal. Retraction Watch. https://retractionwatch.com/2011/10/04/scott-weber-draws-penalties-from-ori-in-plagiarism-fraud-scandal/. Accessed 11 Feb 2021

  40. Marcus AA (2021) Okinawa researcher suspended for faking data denies committing misconduct. Retraction Watch. https://retractionwatch.com/2021/02/03/okinawa-researcher-suspended-for-faking-data-denies-committing-misconduct/. Accessed 11 Feb 2021

  41. Marcus AA (2021) Researcher to overtake Diederik Stapel on the retraction watch leaderboard, with 61. Retraction Watch. https://retractionwatch.com/2021/02/02/researcher-to-overtake-diederik-stapel-on-the-retraction-watch-leaderboard-with-61/. Accessed 11 Feb 2021

  42. Marcus AA (2021) Former Texas postdoc earns 10-year federal funding ban for faking authors and papers to boost metrics. Retraction Watch. https://retractionwatch.com/2021/01/28/former-texas-postdoc-earns-10-year-federal-funding-ban-for-faking-authors-and-papers-to-boost-metrics/. Accessed 11 Feb 2021

  43. Pfeifer MP, Snodgrass GL (1990) The continued use of retracted, invalid scientific literature. JAMA 263:1420–1423

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Mott A, Fairhurst C, Torgerson D (2019) Assessing the impact of retraction on the citation of randomized controlled trial reports: an interrupted time-series analysis. J Health Serv Res Policy 24:44–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Budd JM, Coble ZC, Anderson KM (2011) Retracted publications in biomedicine: cause for concern. Association of College & Research Libraries National Conference, Philadelphia, PA, p 6

    Google Scholar 

  46. Bolboacă SD, Buhai D-V, Aluaș M, Bulboacă AE (2019) Post retraction citations among manuscripts reporting a radiology-imaging diagnostic method. PLoS One 14(6):e0217918

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Kim SY, Yi HJ, Cho H-M, Huh S (2019) How many retracted articles indexed in KoreaMed were cited 1 year after retraction notification. Sci Ed 6:122–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Candal-Pedreira C, Ruano-Ravina A, Fernández E, Ramos J, Campos-Varela I, Pérez-Ríos M (2020) Does retraction after misconduct have an impact on citations? A pre–post study. BMJ Glob Health 5(11):e003719

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Redman BK, Yarandi HN, Merz JF (2008) Empirical developments in retraction. J Med Ethics 34:807–809

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Snodgrass GL, Pfeifer MP (1992) The characteristics of medical retraction notices. Bull Med Libr Assoc 80:328–334

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Davis PM (2012) The persistence of error: a study of retracted articles on the internet and in personal libraries. J Med Libr Assoc 100:184–189

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Budd JM, Sievert M, Schultz TR, Scoville C (1999) Effects of article retraction on citation and practice in medicine. Bull Med Libr Assoc 87:437–443

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Simkin MV, Roychowdhury VP (2005) Stochastic modeling of citation slips. Scientometrics 62:367–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Madlock-Brown CR, Eichmann D (2015) The (lack of) impact of retraction on citation networks. Sci Eng Ethics 21:127–137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Oransky AI (2018) Ask Retraction Watch: is it ok to cite a retracted paper? Retraction Watch. https://retractionwatch.com/2018/01/05/ask-retraction-watch-ok-cite-retracted-paper/. Accessed 11 Feb 2021

  56. McCook AA (2016) What should you do if a paper you’ve cited is later retracted? Retraction Watch. https://retractionwatch.com/2016/11/01/what-should-you-do-if-a-paper-youve-cited-is-later-retracted/. Accessed 11 Feb 2021

  57. Deculllier E, Maisonneuve H (2018) Correcting the literature: improvement trends seen in contents of retraction notices. BMC Res Notes 11:490

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. ICMJE (2019) Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. ICMJE. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/. Accessed 11 Mar 2021

  59. COPE (2015) The standard retraction form proposed. https://publicationethics.org/file/7111. Accessed 13 Feb 2021

  60. Aubert Bonn N, Godecharle S, Dierickx K (2017) European universities’ guidance on research integrity and misconduct: accessibility, approaches, and content. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 12:33–44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Fanelli D, Ioannidis JPA, Goodman S (2018) Improving the integrity of published science: an expanded taxonomy of retractions and corrections. Eur J Clin Investig 48:e12898

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Barbour V, Bloom T, Lin J, Moylan E (2017) Amending published articles: time to rethink retractions and corrections? bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/118356

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain

    Cristina Candal-Pedreira, Mónica Pérez-Ríos & Alberto Ruano-Ravina

  2. Consortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBER en Epidemiología y Salud Pública/CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain

    Mónica Pérez-Ríos & Alberto Ruano-Ravina

  3. Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela (Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago de Compostela - IDIS), Santiago de Compostela, Spain

    Cristina Candal-Pedreira, Mónica Pérez-Ríos & Alberto Ruano-Ravina

Authors
  1. Cristina Candal-Pedreira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mónica Pérez-Ríos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alberto Ruano-Ravina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alberto Ruano-Ravina .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Hospital das Clinicas, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

    Joel Faintuch

  2. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center & Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Salomão Faintuch

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Candal-Pedreira, C., Pérez-Ríos, M., Ruano-Ravina, A. (2022). Retraction of Scientific Papers: Types of Retraction, Consequences, and Impacts. In: Faintuch, J., Faintuch, S. (eds) Integrity of Scientific Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99680-2_40

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99680-2_40

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-99679-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-99680-2

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation