Just checked, and yes, my retracted paper is in the #retractionwatch database, as it should be. However, I wish the reason didn't include that it was an investigation by the journal/publisher, it was me who sweated and wrote a new paper with a solid theorem explaining why our old paper was […]
Original post on mathstodon.xyz
mathstodon.xyzMay 30, 2025 at 1:02 AM
More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 — a new record
The number of articles being retracted rose sharply this year. Integrity experts say that this is only the tip of the iceberg.
More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 — a new record
The number of articles being retracted rose sharply this year. Integrity experts say that this is only the tip of the iceberg.
Retraction Watch Database
How Ten Publishers Retract Research
Retractions are the primary mechanism for correcting the scholarly record, yet publishers differ markedly in how they use them. We present a bibliometric analysis of 46,087 retractions across 10 major publishers using data from the Retraction Watch database (1997-2026), examining retraction rates, reasons, temporal trends, and geographic distributions, among other dimensions. Normalized retraction rates vary by two orders of magnitude, from Elsevier's 3.97 per 10,000 publications to Hindawi's 320.02. China-affiliated authors account for the largest share of retractions at every publisher. Retraction lags and reason profiles also vary widely across publishers. Among the ten publishers, ACM is an outlier in its retraction profile. ACM's normalized rate is mid-range (5.65), yet 98.3% of its 354 retractions are related to one incident. Seven of the ten most common global retraction reasons (including misconduct, plagiarism, and data concerns) are entirely absent from ACM's record. ACM's first retraction dates to 2020, despite a catalog dating to 1997. ACM self-describes its retraction threshold as "extremely high." We discuss this threshold in relation to the COPE retraction guidelines and the implications of ACM's non-public dark archive of removed works.
Retracted coronavirus (COVID-19) papers
via CDC We’ve been tracking retractions of papers about COVID-19 as part of our database. Here’s a running list, which will be updated as needed. (For some context on these figures, see…
Retraction: After a routine code rejection, an AI agent published a hit piece on someone by name
This story has been retracted...
BMJ Group retracts paper on COVID-19 vaccines and mortality featured in Senate hearing
BMJ Public Health has retracted a paper some — including a witness at a recent U.S. Senate subcommittee hearing — have used to link COVID-19 vaccines to deaths. The action comes more than two years…
The State of Papers, Retractions, and Preprints: Evidence from the CrossRef Database (2004-2024)
A 20-year analysis of CrossRef metadata demonstrates that global scholarly output -- encompassing publications, retractions, and preprints -- exhibits strikingly inertial growth, well-described by exponential, quadratic, and logistic models with nearly indistinguishable goodness-of-fit. Retraction dynamics, in particular, remain stable and minimally affected by the COVID-19 shock, which contributed less than 1% to total notices. Since 2004, publications doubled every 9.8 years, retractions every 11.4 years, and preprints at the fastest rate, every 5.6 years. The findings underscore a system primed for ongoing stress at unchanged structural bottlenecks. Although model forecasts diverge beyond 2024, the evidence suggests that the future trajectory of scholarly communication will be determined by persistent systemic inertia rather than episodic disruptions -- unless intentionally redirected by policy or AI-driven reform.
Influential study touting ChatGPT in education retracted over red flags
The retracted study on ChatGPT in education was already cited hundreds of times.
The associations of social media attention, visibility, disinformation and retraction initiators with time to retraction: a Cox regression analysis
Purpose This study examines how retraction reasons, retraction initiators, journal visibility, access models and Twitter activity associate with the speed of retracting flawed scientific publications. Design/methodology/approach Using a Cox proportional hazards model, we analyzed 1,179 articles retracted in 2019–2021, including a subset of 98 papers tweeted before retraction. Findings The results reveal that higher journal impact factor and open-access status were associated with faster retractions. However, a significant negative interaction indicated that the effect of high-impact journals diminished for open-access publications. Journal-initiated retractions were slower overall, except in cases of misconduct such as co-authorship deception and plagiarism, where journals acted more quickly. Among retraction reasons, only deception in co-authoring was associated with significantly slower retractions, but this trend reversed when journals led the process. The association of social media attention with retraction speed was statistically robust, albeit modest in magnitude: each additional pre-retraction tweet was associated with a slight reduction in time to retraction. Bootstrap validation confirmed the stability of this finding. Originality/value Public scrutiny, institutional responsibility and publication visibility jointly shape the time to retraction. This study advances altmetrics discourse by positioning social media as a conditional, yet meaningful, participant in the retraction lifecycle. Beyond altmetrics, our findings highlight retractions as part of a broader network of relationships between public accountability, digital ethics and science communication, positioning them as moments of accountability shaped jointly by journals, ethical responsibilities and digital publics.
Papers and peer reviews with evidence of ChatGPT writing
Retraction Watch readers have likely heard about papers showing evidence that they were written by ChatGPT, including one that went viral. We and others have reported on the phenomenon. Here’…
Retraction Note: High replicability of newly discovered social-behavioural findings is achievable
Nature Human Behaviour - Retraction Note: High replicability of newly discovered social-behavioural findings is achievable
An article about data visualization was retracted 1.5 years after I pointed out errors. The notice says that "concerns were raised". I spend dozens of hours contacting authors and editors, reproducing analyses, and following up on ignored emails. But I'm not mentioned in the retraction notice.
RETRACTED: A Perception Study for Unit Charts in the Context of Large-Magnitude Data Representation
www.mdpi.comUpdate: We submitted the comment to the Journal of Population Economics, and today we got a desk reject with this motivation. However, we do not know their conclusion about the main results and why the paper was not retracted. Clearly, they do not hold. 1/4
Johanna Rickne
🚨 REPLICATION REPORT UPDATE: One year ago, a tweet by John Holbein alerted me, @ollefolke.bsky.social, and @jopieboy.bsky.social to a paper with a shocking result about Sweden’s law criminalizing the purchase of sex.🧵
In our new paper of how Bluesky users discuss retracted papers, we found: ✅ 90% of Bluesky posts show "good practices" (flagging issues/retraction status) ❌ Only 10% show "bad practices" This highlights Bluesky's vital role in responsible science communication! arxiv.org/abs/2605.04334
