Warning: DOMDocument::createElement(): unterminated entity reference Function in /home/virtual/kcse/journal/journal/view.php on line 174 Trends, reasons, and implications of retracted articles in nutrition and dietetics from 1997 to 2023 in the Web of Science: a bibliometric study
Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Science Editing : Science Editing

OPEN ACCESS
SEARCH
Search
Advanced Search
mobile menu button

Articles

Page Path
HOME > Sci Ed > Volume 12(2); 2025 > Article
Original Article
 Trends, reasons, and implications of retracted articles in nutrition and dietetics from 1997 to 2023 in the Web of Science: a bibliometric study
Amrollah Shamsi1orcid, Hadi Emamat2,3orcid, Ting Wang4orcid, Zahra Safaei5orcid
Science Editing 2025;12(2):131-137.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.372
Published online: August 4, 2025

1Clinical Research Development Center, The Persian Gulf Martyrs Hospital, Bushehr University of Medical Sciences, Bushehr, Iran

2Addiction and Lifestyle Research Center, Bushehr University of Medical Sciences, Bushehr, Iran

3Department of Nutritional Sciences, School of Health and Nutrition, Bushehr University of Medical Sciences, Bushehr, Iran

4School of Library and Information Management, Emporia State University, Emporia, KS, USA

5Bushehr University of Medical Sciences, Bushehr, Iran

Correspondence to Zahra Safaei zsafaei48@gmail.com
• Received: May 12, 2025   • Accepted: June 3, 2025

Copyright © 2025 Korean Council of Science Editors

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

prev next
  • 1,972 Views
  • 72 Download
Full Article

Download PDF Download PDF

  • Purpose
    This study analyzed retracted articles in nutrition and dietetics using bibliometric methods to identify their characteristics, trends, and reasons for retraction, thereby enhancing transparency and scientific credibility in the field.
  • Methods
    A bibliometric study was conducted using the Web of Science database to extract retracted articles in nutrition and dietetics without time or language restrictions in November 2024. The search strategy targeted the categories “nutrition & dietetics” and “retracted publication.” Additional data on retraction reasons were collected from the Retraction Watch database. Author-level indicators (e.g., number of authors, countries) and document-level indicators (e.g., publication trends, citations, retraction reasons) were analyzed. VOSviewer was used for keyword co-occurrence analysis, and descriptive statistics provided quantitative insights.
  • Results
    Between 1997 and 2023, 105 retracted articles were identified, authored by 523 researchers, and collectively cited 3,171 times. The United States and China led in the number of retractions (26.7% and 17.1%, respectively). Misconduct was the leading reason for retraction (87 articles, 82.9%), but 48 articles (45.7%) had no reason reported. Journals classified in the Q1 and Q2 categories accounted for most retractions, and 46.7% of the articles had funding. Keyword analysis revealed four clusters focused on public health, biomedical mechanisms, experimental research, and nutritional compounds.
  • Conclusion
    Although the overall number of retracted articles in nutrition and dietetics remains limited, scientific misconduct and insufficiently reported retraction reasons present ongoing challenges to the integrity of the literature. Improved citation practices and greater transparency in retraction reporting are essential to protect public health and maintain scientific trust.
  • Keywords: Nutrition and dietetics; Scientific misconduct; Retracted articles; Bibliometric analysis; Citation
Background
Nutrition and dietetics play a vital role in human health. Nutrition encompasses the processes by which the body receives and utilizes food or nutrients. These processes include the biological functions that fulfill the physiological needs of the body through food consumption [1]. Consistent adherence to nutritional recommendations is essential for disease control [2]. Noncompliance with treatment regimens increases the risk of complications, disease progression, and relapse. Thus, nutrition is especially crucial for clinical patients [1]. For example, nutritional therapies, interventions, and assessments can help reduce side effects caused by cancer treatment [3]. Numerous epidemiological studies have also shown that nutrition significantly impacts mental health [4], underscoring the necessity of ongoing research in this area. Research helps prevent disease, supports treatment for various conditions, and promotes overall health. It is also essential for nutritionists and dietitians to develop and deliver evidence-based interventions, including medical nutrition therapy provided by registered dietitians [5]. Indeed, nutrition research is important for promoting community health. Although research significantly contributes to public health [6], it is essential that such research is of high quality and reliability.
The retraction of scientific articles is one of the risks threatening the quality and credibility of scholarly literature. Retraction serves as a mechanism to correct the literature and alert readers to problematic articles. In other words, it refers to articles that are removed due to ethical violations, noncompliance with scientific standards, or incomplete publication [7]. The number of retracted articles has been rising, with more than 10,000 articles retracted in 2023 alone [8]. Despite retraction, researchers continue to cite these articles, and such citations persist even after retraction [9,10]. Therefore, identifying the status of retracted articles in nutrition and dietetics can provide valuable insights into the current situation and inform researchers, a need that can be addressed through bibliometric analysis.
Bibliometrics is a quantitative research method that uses publication, citation, and textual data to describe and analyze the dynamics and development of a research field [1]. Bibliometric analysis is also effective for understanding broader trends in research activity [11]. Although several bibliometric studies have addressed the literature of nutrition and dietetics or related topics [1,3,5], to our knowledge, the issue of retracted articles in this field has not been systematically examined.
Objectives
By identifying retracted articles in nutrition and dietetics and analyzing their characteristics using bibliometric methods, this study seeks to provide deeper insights into author- and document-level indicators in this field. The findings can help improve the quality of future research and enhance transparency and scientific credibility in nutrition and dietetics.
Ethics statement
This study did not involve human materials; therefore, institutional review board approval and informed consent were not required.
Study design
This was a literature database-based bibliometric study.
Data source and search strategy
The Web of Science database (Science Citation Index Expanded [SCI-EXPANDED], Social Sciences Citation Index [SSCI], Arts & Humanities Citation Index [A&HCI], Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science [CPCI-S], Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Social Science & Humanities [CPCI-SSH], Emerging Sources Citation Index [ESCI]) was used to identify retracted articles in nutrition and dietetics. Bibliographic information for retracted articles was extracted and stored without time or language restrictions in November 2024. The following search strategy was used to retrieve articles: “WC= Nutrition & Dietetics AND DT=Retracted Publication.” The Retraction Watch database was also used to obtain additional details, such as the reasons and timing for each article’s retraction announcement.
Bibliometric indicators
Analyses in this study were performed at two levels: author-level (e.g., number of authors, authors per article, countries) and document-level (e.g., number of publications and trends, retraction reasons, number and average of citations, time gap between retraction notice and publication/citation date, country, funding status and type, journals).
Statistical analysis
VOSviewer ver. 1.6.15 (Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University) was used to analyze the word co-occurrence network. This free software enables the construction and visualization of bibliometric networks at different levels. For the word co-occurrence network, all keywords from the included documents were standardized, and those appearing in at least five documents were extracted. Descriptive statistics were used to present the results.
The results from Web of Science revealed that, between 1997 and 2023, there were 105 retracted articles in the field of nutrition and dietetics, authored by a total of 523 researchers. Collectively, these articles received 3,171 citations. Further details, such as the time interval from publication to retraction and citation counts after retraction, are presented in Table 1.
Trends in retracted articles
Our findings also show trends in retracted articles over the 1997–2023 period, as illustrated in Fig. 1. The data demonstrate that the number of retracted articles remained low and relatively stable from 1997 to 2005, with no more than three retractions per year during this period. A sharp increase occurred in 2006 and 2008, followed by another surge between 2013 and 2017. After this peak, a slight decline was noted, followed by stabilization.
Journals
In addition to identifying the journals with the highest number of retracted articles, we also examined the journals most frequently citing these retracted publications (Table 2). Notably, more than 150 systematic reviews referenced retracted articles in nutrition and dietetics. An analysis of journal quality indicated that among the 36 journals with retracted articles, 15 journals (41.7%) in Q1 had a Journal Impact Factor (JIF) ranging from 2.4 to 8.5, 14 journals (38.9%) in Q2 had JIFs between 3.0 and 4.1, four journals (11.1%) in Q3 had JIFs from 2.0 to 2.5, one journal (2.8%) in Q4 had a JIF of 0.7, and two journals (5.6%) were unranked.
Countries and regions
A geographical analysis of the authors showed that 39 countries contributed to the 105 retracted articles, with the United States, China, and Japan being the leading countries. The 10 countries with the highest number of retracted articles are presented in Table 3.
Retraction reasons
An analysis of the reasons for retraction revealed that misconduct was the most common cause. Additional reasons and their frequencies are listed in Table 4. It should be noted that the total frequency in Table 4 exceeds 105, as some articles were retracted for more than one reason.
Analysis of funding
A review of the funding status of retracted articles showed that 49 out of 105 articles (46.7%) had received financial support.
Co-occurrence of keywords
The keyword co-occurrence network for all included articles, shown in Fig. 2, contained 17 terms grouped into four distinct clusters. The red cluster centers on public health and epidemiological terms such as “obesity,” “women,” and “body mass index,” reflecting a strong emphasis on population-level health concerns. The blue cluster highlights biomedical mechanisms, with keywords like “inflammation,” “oxidative stress,” and “NF-kappa-b,” indicating an interest in molecular and cellular pathways. The green cluster features experimental research terms such as “rat,” “expression,” and “apoptosis,” representing laboratory-based studies. Other clusters emphasize health-related outcomes (e.g., “blood pressure,” “health,” “metabolism”) and nutritional compounds like “antioxidants.” This map reveals an interdisciplinary landscape, with retracted literature in nutrition and dietetics covering clinical, epidemiological, and biochemical perspectives.
Key results
A review of retracted articles in nutrition and dietetics over the 1997–2023 period reveals relatively low annual retraction counts, with notable variability and several peak years. While the overall volume remains modest, the trend does not show a consistent pattern of annual increase or decrease. These fluctuations may be attributable to shifts in publication oversight, detection practices, or changes in reporting standards within the field.
Interpretation/comparison with previous studies
The increase in retracted articles can be viewed as a positive development, as the removal of articles containing errors or misconduct helps to maintain the integrity of the scientific literature [12]. Our findings also indicate that teams of four or five authors wrote more than a third of retracted articles. Single-author articles comprised approximately 10% of retractions, which is double the rate reported in other studies [13]. The average number of citations received by retracted articles in nutrition and dietetics was similar to previous studies [14]. This similarity may be due to the average time interval between publication and retraction in this field, which was around four years—longer than reported in some earlier studies [7].
Further analysis showed that most citations to retracted articles occurred prior to their retraction, and that citations to older articles tended to decrease over time [9]. However, each citation to a retracted article can contaminate the literature, threaten scientific integrity, and, in the context of health sciences, pose risks to public health [15]. Researchers must therefore cite articles with greater caution and promptly correct their work when necessary. As demonstrated, citing retracted articles—both before and after retraction—can occur inadvertently, sometimes due to the availability of preretraction versions on personal or institutional websites or in online repositories [16], and sometimes because of delays in journals tagging retracted articles. Regardless of the reason, researchers must ensure the accuracy and validity of the sources they cite. Using citation management tools such as EndNote and consulting librarians [17] are effective strategies to reduce the likelihood of citing retracted articles. Notably, our review identified more than 150 systematic reviews that referenced retracted nutrition articles, despite systematic reviews being highly regarded for their credibility in healthcare [9]. This problem is further exacerbated when researchers are slow to correct their own mis-citations [18].
Geographical analysis of authorship revealed that the United States and China together accounted for over 40% of retracted articles, a finding consistent with previous reports [19]. It is important to note, however, that these countries—particularly the United States—produce the highest number of scientific publications globally, which increases the absolute number of retractions simply due to publication volume. Analysis of journal quality indicated that most retracted articles appeared in Q1 and Q2 journals, underscoring the influence and credibility of these publications. Nonetheless, the broad range of impact factors (0.7 to 8.5) and the presence of retractions in Q3 and Q4 journals demonstrate that retraction is not exclusively related to journal quality, but also reflects limitations in peer review and editorial processes.
Consistent with earlier studies [13], we found that misconduct was the leading cause of retraction. Scientific misconduct encompasses data and information falsification, image manipulation, intentional concealment of relevant relationships or activities, and plagiarism in both research and non-research articles. Notably, almost half of the retractions in this study lacked a stated reason, which raises significant concerns. The absence of a clear retraction reason can result in distrust of the literature and journals, mislead researchers, reduce confidence in editorial processes, complicate article evaluation, and hinder learning from past mistakes. Furthermore, if a retracted article is cited without a reported reason for retraction, subsequent researchers may be uncertain about whether they need to correct their own work [20], thereby undermining scientific integrity and trust.
Funding plays a critical role in research. Retractions, however, can discourage funders, potentially resulting in reduced financial support for future research and new challenges in research funding. Our study found that more than 45% of retracted articles had received funding. Having a representative from the funding agency in communication with the author team may help promote transparency and better justify the sponsors’ involvement if an article is retracted.
The co-occurrence analysis of keywords revealed that vocabulary in retracted articles clustered into four main thematic areas. These clusters included research on disease risk factors, molecular mechanisms of chronic diseases, the effects of antioxidants on cellular processes, and a focus on general health and biological processes. This categorization suggests that the retracted literature in nutrition and dietetics encompasses a broad and multidimensional spectrum, ranging from epidemiological investigations to molecular experiments.
Limitations
This study relied exclusively on the Web of Science and Retraction Watch databases. As a result, articles indexed in other databases, such as Scopus or PubMed, but not in the Web of Science, may have been overlooked. Nearly half of the articles also lacked reported reasons for retraction, limiting the study’s ability to assess the true underlying causes and potentially underestimating the prevalence of misconduct or other key factors.
Conclusions
This study examined retracted articles in nutrition and dietetics, demonstrating that while retractions have increased in recent years, the total number remains limited. The results indicate that scientific misconduct, including plagiarism, was the primary reason for retraction, and that many articles lacked a clear explanation for their removal. This poses significant challenges, such as eroding trust in scientific literature and complicating the processes of correction and citation. The findings highlight the need for greater caution when citing articles, in order to prevent contamination of the literature and to protect public health.

Conflict of Interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for this article.

Data Availability

Dataset files are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Restrictions apply to data sharing as they were used under license for this study.

Supplementary materials

The authors did not provide any supplementary materials for this article.

Fig. 1.
Trend of retracted articles.
kcse-372f1.jpg
Fig. 2.
Co-occurrence of keywords (all keywords) in retracted articles.
kcse-372f2.jpg
Table 1.
Characteristics of retracted articles (1997–2023)
Characteristic Value
No. of documents 105
No. of sources 36
Author-level indicator
 Total no. of authors 523
 Average no. of authors per document 4.98
 Team size (no. of authors)
  1 11
  2 11
  3 9
  4 18
  5 15
  6 9
  7 16
  8 4
  9 4
  ≥ 10 8
Document-level indicator
 Average no. of days between publication and retraction (range) 1,488 (58–6,918)
 Total no. of citations 3,171
 Average no. of citations per document 30.20
Table 2.
Top 10 journals with retracted articles and top 10 journals citing retracted articles
Rank Journal No. of articles 2023 JIF
Journals with retracted articles
 1 Journal of Nutritional Science and Vitaminology 9 0.7
 2 Food Chemistry 8 8.5
 3 Journal of Nutrition 7 3.7
 4 Lipids in Health and Disease 6 3.9
 5 Nutrients 5 4.8
 6 Obesity 5 4.2
 7 Appetite 4 4.6
 8 Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 4 7.3
 9 International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition 4 3.5
 10 Journal of Clinical Biochemistry and Nutrition 4 2.0
Journals citing retracted articles
 1 Nutrients 75 4.8
 2 Plos One 40 2.9
 3 Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 28 5.7
 4 Journal of Nutrition 28 3.7
 5 Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 27 7.3
 6 Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 27 8.8
 7 Food Chemistry 25 8.5
 8 Molecules 22 4.2
 9 21 5.1
 10 Nutrition 21 3.2

JIF, Journal Impact Factor.

Table 3.
Top 10 countries with the highest frequency of retracted articles
Country No. of articles (%)
USA 28 (26.7)
China 18 (17.1)
Japan 12 (11.4)
Iran 11 (10.5)
India 9 (8.6)
Korea 8 (7.6)
Taiwan 6 (5.7)
England 5 (4.8)
Canada 4 (3.8)
Egypt, Vietnam, France, Germany, Brazil, Türkiye 3 (2.9)
Table 4.
Reason for retraction (n=105)
Reason No. of articles (%)
Misconduct 87 (82.9)
No reason reported 48 (45.7)
Other 38 (36.2)
Redundant publication 18 (17.1)
Authorship issues 18 (17.1)
Overlap 13 (12.4)
Honest error 9 (8.6)
Inappropriate citation 6 (5.7)

The sum exceeds the total as some articles had more than one reason.

Figure & Data

References

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  

      Figure
      • 0
      • 1
      Related articles
      Trends, reasons, and implications of retracted articles in nutrition and dietetics from 1997 to 2023 in the Web of Science: a bibliometric study
      Image Image
      Fig. 1. Trend of retracted articles.
      Fig. 2. Co-occurrence of keywords (all keywords) in retracted articles.

      Fig. 1.

      Fig. 2.

      Trends, reasons, and implications of retracted articles in nutrition and dietetics from 1997 to 2023 in the Web of Science: a bibliometric study
      Characteristic Value
      No. of documents 105
      No. of sources 36
      Author-level indicator
       Total no. of authors 523
       Average no. of authors per document 4.98
       Team size (no. of authors)
        1 11
        2 11
        3 9
        4 18
        5 15
        6 9
        7 16
        8 4
        9 4
        ≥ 10 8
      Document-level indicator
       Average no. of days between publication and retraction (range) 1,488 (58–6,918)
       Total no. of citations 3,171
       Average no. of citations per document 30.20
      Rank Journal No. of articles 2023 JIF
      Journals with retracted articles
       1 Journal of Nutritional Science and Vitaminology 9 0.7
       2 Food Chemistry 8 8.5
       3 Journal of Nutrition 7 3.7
       4 Lipids in Health and Disease 6 3.9
       5 Nutrients 5 4.8
       6 Obesity 5 4.2
       7 Appetite 4 4.6
       8 Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 4 7.3
       9 International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition 4 3.5
       10 Journal of Clinical Biochemistry and Nutrition 4 2.0
      Journals citing retracted articles
       1 Nutrients 75 4.8
       2 Plos One 40 2.9
       3 Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 28 5.7
       4 Journal of Nutrition 28 3.7
       5 Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 27 7.3
       6 Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 27 8.8
       7 Food Chemistry 25 8.5
       8 Molecules 22 4.2
       9 Food & Function 21 5.1
       10 Nutrition 21 3.2
      Country No. of articles (%)
      USA 28 (26.7)
      China 18 (17.1)
      Japan 12 (11.4)
      Iran 11 (10.5)
      India 9 (8.6)
      Korea 8 (7.6)
      Taiwan 6 (5.7)
      England 5 (4.8)
      Canada 4 (3.8)
      Egypt, Vietnam, France, Germany, Brazil, Türkiye 3 (2.9)
      Reason No. of articles (%)
      Misconduct 87 (82.9)
      No reason reported 48 (45.7)
      Other 38 (36.2)
      Redundant publication 18 (17.1)
      Authorship issues 18 (17.1)
      Overlap 13 (12.4)
      Honest error 9 (8.6)
      Inappropriate citation 6 (5.7)
      Table 1. Characteristics of retracted articles (1997–2023)

      Table 2. Top 10 journals with retracted articles and top 10 journals citing retracted articles

      JIF, Journal Impact Factor.

      Table 3. Top 10 countries with the highest frequency of retracted articles

      Table 4. Reason for retraction (n=105)

      The sum exceeds the total as some articles had more than one reason.

      Table 1.

      Table 2.

      Table 3.

      Table 4.

      Science Editing : Science Editing
      © Korean Council of Science Editors.
      TOP