Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Empirical developments in retraction
  1. B K Redman1,2,
  2. H N Yarandi2,
  3. J F Merz1
  1. 1
    Department of Medical Ethics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
  2. 2
    College of Nursing, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA
  1. Barbara K Redman, College of Nursing, Wayne State University, 5557 Cass Avenue, Detroit, Michigan 48202, USA; B.Redman{at}


This study provides current data on key questions about retraction of scientific articles. Findings confirm that the rate of retractions remains low but is increasing. The most commonly cited reason for retraction was research error or inability to reproduce results; the rate from research misconduct is an underestimate, since some retractions necessitated by research misconduct were reported as being due to inability to reproduce. Retraction by parties other than authors is increasing, especially for research misconduct. Although retractions are on average occurring sooner after publication than in the past, citation analysis shows that they are not being recognised by subsequent users of the work. Findings suggest that editors and institutional officials are taking more responsibility for correcting the scientific record but that reasons published in the retraction notice are not always reliable. More aggressive means of notification to the scientific community appear to be necessary.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Competing interests: None declared.