Science Editing

Original Articles

Patterns of scientific misconduct, time to retraction, and post-retraction citation in dental implantology from 2000 to 2024: a bibliometric study: Indumathi Sivakumar, Sivakumar Arunachalam, Praveen Gadde, Muaiyed Mahmoud Buzayan, Jitendra Sharan, Bindu Kamaraj; Sci Ed. 2026;13(1):22-28. Published online January 29, 2026; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.391

121 View
12 Download

Abstract PDF: Purpose
This study analyzed retracted publications in dental implantology research to identify reasons for retraction, characterize geographic and journal trends, quantify the time lag from publication to retraction, and assess the impact of retractions through post-retraction citation patterns.
Methods
A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EBSCO, Retraction Watch, and Google Scholar identified retracted dental implant–related articles published between 2000 and 2024. Seventy-eight retracted articles were included. Extracted data included article title, journal, authors’ country, publication date, retraction date, retraction notice text, stated reason for retraction, journal impact factor, total citations, and citations after retraction. Descriptive statistics were used. Multiple linear regression evaluated factors associated with time to retraction, and logistic regression evaluated factors associated with post-retraction citation.
Results
In the 78 identified articles, the most common reasons for retraction were image duplication or image-related discrepancies (53.8%) and data-related inaccuracies or unreliable data (23.1%). Spain accounted for the largest proportion of retracted articles (56.4%), and Clinical Oral Implants Research had the highest number of retractions. The mean time between publication and retraction was 4.44±3.70 years. Despite retraction, articles continued to be cited, receiving a mean of 6.89±8.26 citations after retraction. Logistic regression showed that the publication-to-retraction interval was the only significant predictor of post-retraction citation (odds ratio, 0.645; P=0.001).
Conclusion
Retractions in dental implantology research represent a serious threat to research integrity and highlight the risk of flawed evidence persisting in the literature. Enhanced editorial vigilance, rigorous research integrity training, and faster retraction protocols are essential to safeguard evidence-based dental practice.

Retraction patterns in Scopus-indexed publications from South Africa, Egypt, Nigeria, Tunisia, and Morocco (2014–2023): a bibliometric analysis: Ridha Mhamdi; Sci Ed. 2026;13(1):4-13. Published online January 29, 2026; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.390

86 View
7 Download

Abstract PDF: Purpose
This study analyzed retraction patterns and regional nuances in the five African countries with the highest scientific output—South Africa, Egypt, Nigeria, Tunisia, and Morocco—to inform integrity policies.
Methods
Retraction dynamics were examined using data from Scopus, SciVal, and the Retraction Watch Database.
Results
Substantial variation was observed in retraction rates, with Egypt showing an exceptionally high rate, nearly eight times that of South Africa, and reaching a peak of 35 retractions per 10,000 publications in 2022. This increase was strongly associated with collaborations with Saudi Arabia, as 75% of Egypt’s retractions involved co-authorship with Saudi researchers. Unreliable or fraudulent content remained the most common retraction reason across all countries, with paper mills and randomly generated content being major contributors. Although falsification and manipulation occurred, they were less frequent overall. Plagiarism was particularly prominent in research from Tunisia (29.6%) and Morocco (30.3%), while duplication was most common in research from Egypt (25.5%) and Morocco (24.2%). Fake peer review constituted a major problem in Tunisia (34.6%) and Egypt (31.1%). Authorship issues were most frequently observed in studies from Nigeria (19.0%) and Tunisia (21.0%), and ethical issues appeared to be relatively infrequent across the region. Retractions disproportionately affected Q1 and Q2 journals and spanned a wide range of disciplines, with medicine and engineering being the most impacted. Notably, retracted articles continue to accumulate citations after retraction, indicating persistent challenges in research integrity.
Conclusion
The findings underscore the need for strengthened research oversight and expanded ethics training to address the concerning retraction trends observed, particularly in Egypt and in collaborative research with Saudi Arabia.

Trends in publications on scientific misconduct from 2000 to 2024: a Scopus-based bibliometric study: Jesús Enrique Quezada Castro, María del Pilar Quezada Castro; Sci Ed. 2026;13(1):14-21. Published online January 29, 2026; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.389

81 View
11 Download

Abstract PDF: Purpose
Scientific research is intended to be a transparent and reproducible process. However, scientific misconduct distorts reality and presents fraudulent findings as truth. This bibliometric study aimed to map trends in scientific output and to identify the leading authors, journals, keywords, and documents addressing scientific misconduct between 2000 and 2024.
Methods
Scientific production indexed in the Scopus database was analyzed. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 3,536 documents were selected. The data were processed using Biblioshiny and Microsoft Excel.
Results
The annual growth rate of publications on scientific misconduct was estimated at 5.33%, with 2024 recording the highest number of indexed documents in Scopus. Collaboration networks were led by the United States, the United Kingdom, and China. The most frequently used keywords were research integrity and scientific misconduct. Retraction was identified as a key control mechanism adopted by journals to uphold research ethics.
Conclusion
Over the past 4 years, scientific output on scientific misconduct has increased, with Q1 Scopus journals playing a central role in establishing international standards for detecting and eliminating research fraud.

Amount, cause, and citation frequency of retracted nursing publications from 1997 to 2024 in PubMed: a bibliometric study: Marlen Yessirkepov, Zhanat Togaibekova, Burhan Fatih Kocyigit, Ahmet Akyol; Sci Ed. 2025;12(2):109-113. Published online April 30, 2025; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.368

2,676 View
107 Download

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material: Purpose
Retraction provides an opportunity to correct the literature by restricting the spread of incomplete, erroneous, or biased information among the scientific community. This study aimed to delineate the features of retracted publications in the nursing field.
Methods
This literature investigation identified all retracted nursing papers in PubMed. It included information on each paper’s title, authors, publication date, retraction date, journal, article category, corresponding author’s nationality, and rationale for retraction. Citation statistics were acquired from Scopus.
Results
After excluding publications not relevant to the field, 457 papers remained for further analysis from an initial pool of 866. The earliest retracted article appeared in 2007 (n=3), with the peak occurring in 2023 (n=359). The three predominant countries were China (n=398), the United States (n=9), and Iran (n=7). The primary grounds for retraction were peer review issues (n=395), fraud (n=353), and ethical concerns (n=130). The retracted publications accumulated a total of 1,659 citations, averaging 3.63 per article, with 909 citations (1.99 per article) recorded after retraction.
Conclusion
This study highlights that retractions of nursing-related publications are frequently linked to peer review challenges, fraud, and ethical concerns. A disproportionate number of retracted articles originated from China. Comprehensive peer review, ethical oversight, and fraud prevention are needed to preserve the integrity of nursing research.

Characteristics of retracted articles based on retraction data from online sources through February 2019: Quan-Hoang Vuong, Viet-Phuong La, Manh-Tung Ho, Thu-Trang Vuong, Manh-Toan Ho; Sci Ed. 2020;7(1):34-44. Published online February 20, 2020; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.187

18,774 View
412 Download
34 Web of Science
29 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Purpose
Although retractions are commonly considered to be negative, the fact remains that they play a positive role in the academic community. For instance, retractions help scientific enterprise perform its self-correcting function and provide lessons for future researchers; furthermore, they represent the fulfillment of social responsibilities, and they enable scientific communities to offer better monitoring services to keep problematic studies in check. This study aims to provide a thorough overview of the practice of retraction in scientific publishing from the first incident to the present.
Methods
We built a database using SQL Server 2016 and homemade artificial intelligence tools to extract and classify data sources including RetractionWatch, official publishers’ archives, and online communities into ready-to-analyze groups and to scan them for new data. After data cleaning, a dataset of 18,603 retractions from 1,753 (when the first retracted paper was published) to February 2019, covering 127 research fields, was established.
Results
Notable retraction events include the rise in retracted articles starting in 1999 and the unusual number of retractions in 2010. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Elsevier, and Springer account for nearly 60% of all retracted papers globally, with Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers contributing the most retractions, even though it is not the organization that publishes the most journals. Finally, reasons for retraction are diverse but the most common is “fake peer review”.
Conclusion
This study suggests that the frequency of retraction has boomed in the past 20 years, and it underscores the importance of understanding and learning from the practice of retracting scientific articles.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Evaluating the ethical landscape of environmental sciences research papers: a comprehensive review based on retraction Watch database
Swagota Saikia, Faizul Nisha, Manoj Kumar Verma
Applied Environmental Education & Communication.2026; : 1. CrossRef
Retractions covered by retraction watch from 2017 to 2022: a perspective from Indian researchers
Somipam R. Shimray, Sakshi Tiwari, Chennupati Kodand Ramaiah
Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication.2025; 74(7-8): 2225. CrossRef
Evaluation of retracted publications related to oral health: a scoping review
Bodiek M. L. E. Reith, Henk S. Brand
British Dental Journal.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Characterizing the effect of retractions on publishing careers
Shahan Ali Memon, Kinga Makovi, Bedoor AlShebli
Nature Human Behaviour.2025; 9(6): 1134. CrossRef
Assigning linguistic agency and attributive responsibility in retraction notices
Shaoxiong Brian Xu, Guangwei Hu
Ethics & Behavior.2025; : 1. CrossRef
Narrative review and bibliometric analysis on infodemics and health misinformation: A trending global issue
Muhammad Iqhrammullah, Naufal Gusti, Asyraf Muzaffar, Yousef Khader, Sidik Maulana, Marius Rademaker, Asnawi Abdullah
Health Policy and Technology.2025; 14(5): 101058. CrossRef
A data mining-based study on academic publication retractions in the 21st Century
Qian Shen, Xueyan Gao, Xiaomeng Xiong
Accountability in Research.2025; : 1. CrossRef
‘Wasted’ research and lost citations: A scientometric assessment of retracted documents in Scopus between 2001 and 2024
Gergely Ferenc Lendvai, Péter Sasvári
Journal of Information Science.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Can social media provide early warning of retraction? Evidence from critical tweets identified by human annotation and large language models
Er‐Te Zheng, Hui‐Zhen Fu, Mike Thelwall, Zhichao Fang
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Characteristics of retracted research papers before and during the COVID-19 pandemic
Yuki Furuse
Frontiers in Medicine.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Retractions in arts and humanities: an analysis of the retraction notices
Ivan Heibi, Silvio Peroni
Digital Scholarship in the Humanities.2024; 39(2): 548. CrossRef
A comparative study on characteristics of retracted publications across different open access levels
Er-Te Zheng, Hui-Zhen Fu
Journal of Data and Information Science.2024; 9(2): 22. CrossRef
Streamlining the self-correction process: a review of the use of replication research by organizational scholars
Przemysław G. Hensel, Agnieszka Kacprzak
Journal of Organizational Change Management.2024; 37(3): 465. CrossRef
Publication Ethics in the Era of Artificial Intelligence
Zafer Kocak
Journal of Korean Medical Science.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Over two decades of scientific misconduct in India: Retraction reasons and journal quality among inter-country and intra-country institutional collaboration
Kiran Sharma
Scientometrics.2024; 129(12): 7735. CrossRef
Mapping retracted articles and exploring regional differences in China, 2012–2023
Liping Shi, Xue Zhang, Xiaojun Ma, Xian Sun, Jiangping Li, Shulan He, Robin Haunschild
PLOS ONE.2024; 19(12): e0314622. CrossRef
Research done wrong: A comprehensive investigation of retracted publications in COVID-19
Somipam R. Shimray
Accountability in Research.2023; 30(7): 393. CrossRef
“Research exceptionalism” in the COVID-19 pandemic: an analysis of scientific retractions in Scopus
Priscila Rubbo, Caroline Lievore, Celso Biynkievycz Dos Santos, Claudia Tania Picinin, Luiz Alberto Pilatti, Bruno Pedroso
Ethics & Behavior.2023; 33(5): 339. CrossRef
Biased, wrong and counterfeited evidences published during the COVID-19 pandemic, a systematic review of retracted COVID-19 papers
Angelo Capodici, Aurelia Salussolia, Francesco Sanmarchi, Davide Gori, Davide Golinelli
Quality & Quantity.2023; 57(5): 4881. CrossRef
Are female scientists underrepresented in self-retractions for honest error?
Mariana D. Ribeiro, Jesus Mena-Chalco, Karina de Albuquerque Rocha, Marlise Pedrotti, Patrick Menezes, Sonia M. R. Vasconcelos
Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Causes for Retraction in the Biomedical Literature: A Systematic Review of Studies of Retraction Notices
Soo Young Hwang, Dong Keon Yon, Seung Won Lee, Min Seo Kim, Jong Yeob Kim, Lee Smith, Ai Koyanagi, Marco Solmi, Andre F Carvalho, Eunyoung Kim, Jae Il Shin, John P A Ioannidis
Journal of Korean Medical Science.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
The relationship between methodological quality and the use of retracted publications in evidence syntheses
Caitlin J. Bakker, Nicole Theis-Mahon, Sarah Jane Brown, Maurice P. Zeegers
Systematic Reviews.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Non‐author entities accountable for retractions: A diachronic and cross‐disciplinary exploration of reasons for retraction
Shaoxiong (Brian) Xu, Guangwei Hu
Learned Publishing.2022; 35(2): 261. CrossRef
Correction of the Scientific Production: Publisher Performance Evaluation Using a Dataset of 4844 PubMed Retractions
Catalin Toma, Liliana Padureanu, Bogdan Toma
Publications.2022; 10(2): 18. CrossRef
Can tweets be used to detect problems early with scientific papers? A case study of three retracted COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 papers
Robin Haunschild, Lutz Bornmann
Scientometrics.2021; 126(6): 5181. CrossRef
Research ethics: a profile of retractions from world class universities
Caroline Lievore, Priscila Rubbo, Celso Biynkievycz dos Santos, Claudia Tânia Picinin, Luiz Alberto Pilatti
Scientometrics.2021; 126(8): 6871. CrossRef
Retractions, Fake Peer Reviews, and Paper Mills
Horacio Rivera, Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
Journal of Korean Medical Science.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
A cross-disciplinary and severity-based study of author-related reasons for retraction
Shaoxiong (Brian) Xu, Guangwei Hu
Accountability in Research.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
Comprehensive Analysis of Retracted Publications in Dentistry: A 23-Year Review
Shannon Samuel, Joe Mathew Cherian, Abi M. Thomas, Stefano Corbella
International Journal of Dentistry.2020; 2020: 1. CrossRef

How many retracted articles indexed in KoreaMed were cited 1 year after retraction notification: Soo Young Kim, Hyun Jung Yi, Hye-Min Cho, Sun Huh; Sci Ed. 2019;6(2):122-127. Published online August 19, 2019; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.172

12,830 View
144 Download
10 Web of Science
8 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Purpose
It aimed to investigate how many retracted articles indexed in KoreaMed were cited in both the Scopus and the Korea Medical Citation Index (KoMCI) databases and to investigate whether the frequency of post-retraction citations was different according to the presence of a retraction mark.
Methods
Retracted articles from the KoreaMed database were collected on January 28, 2016. Scopus and KoMCI were searched for post-retraction citations, which were defined as citations 1 year after the retraction, excluding retraction-related citations.
Results
The 114 retracted articles were found in KoreaMed. The proportion of retracted articles in KoreaMed, the Korean medical journal database, through January 2016 was 0.04% (114/256,000). On the journal homepage, a retraction mark was present for 49 of the 114 retracted articles. Of the 114 retracted articles, 45 were cited in Scopus 176 times. Of the 176 citations, 109 (of 36 retracted articles) were post-retraction citations. The number of citations in KoMCI, except for citations of retraction notices, was 33 (of 14 retracted articles). Of those citations, the number of post-retraction citations in KoMCI was 14 (of 8 retracted articles). The presence of a retraction mark did not influence post-retraction citations (P>0.05). Post-retraction citations were frequent in the range of 1 to 3 years.
Conclusion
Post-retraction citations that were found in both Scopus and the KoMCI occurred frequently for retracted articles in KoreaMed. Adoption of Crossmark is recommended as one choice to prevent post-retraction citations.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Expert-recommended biomedical journal articles: Their retractions or corrections, and post-retraction citing
Peiling Wang, Jing Su
Journal of Information Science.2024; 50(1): 17. CrossRef
The indexation of retracted literature in seven principal scholarly databases: a coverage comparison of dimensions, OpenAlex, PubMed, Scilit, Scopus, The Lens and Web of Science
José Luis Ortega, Lorena Delgado-Quirós
Scientometrics.2024; 129(7): 3769. CrossRef
Exploring perception of retraction based on mentioned status in post-retraction citations
Xiaojuan Liu, Chenlin Wang, Dar-Zen Chen, Mu-Hsuan Huang
Journal of Informetrics.2022; 16(3): 101304. CrossRef
Inconsistent and incomplete retraction of published research: A cross-sectional study on Covid-19 retractions and recommendations to mitigate risks for research, policy and practice
Geoff Frampton, Lois Woods, David Alexander Scott, Eleanor Ochodo
PLOS ONE.2021; 16(10): e0258935. CrossRef
Continued use of retracted papers: Temporal trends in citations and (lack of) awareness of retractions shown in citation contexts in biomedicine
Tzu-Kun Hsiao, Jodi Schneider
Quantitative Science Studies.2021; 2(4): 1144. CrossRef
Does retraction after misconduct have an impact on citations? A pre–post study
Cristina Candal-Pedreira, Alberto Ruano-Ravina, Esteve Fernández, Jorge Ramos, Isabel Campos-Varela, Mónica Pérez-Ríos
BMJ Global Health.2020; 5(11): e003719. CrossRef
Comprehensive Analysis of Retracted Publications in Dentistry: A 23-Year Review
Shannon Samuel, Joe Mathew Cherian, Abi M. Thomas, Stefano Corbella
International Journal of Dentistry.2020; 2020: 1. CrossRef
Continued post-retraction citation of a fraudulent clinical trial report, 11 years after it was retracted for falsifying data
Jodi Schneider, Di Ye, Alison M. Hill, Ashley S. Whitehorn
Scientometrics.2020; 125(3): 2877. CrossRef

First
Prev
Page of 1
Next
Last

Search