Scientific paper retractions do not terminate their academic impact; rather, they create a ghost-like existence in the scientific literature. This study examines the ‘afterlife’ of retracted articles in high-prestige journals. Accordingly, it analyses the citation patterns after retraction of 994 retracted articles from Nature Index journals and their 21,047 citations. The findings indicate that 93.9% of these articles continued receiving citations post-retraction, with 47.86% of citations being neutral and 39.79% carrying a positive tone. In descriptive comparisons, categories involving ethical or misconduct-related issues showed a larger reduction in citations after retraction, whereas categories dominated by scientific errors exhibited a more moderate decrease. These patterns should be interpreted as associations rather than as definitive causal differences, particularly because retraction notices may include multiple overlapping reasons and vary in the level of detail they provide. Citation persistence also varied by section: introduction citations remained stable, while citations in the ‘Methods’ and ‘Results’ sections declined significantly. These results highlight the complex and lasting impact of retracted articles on scientific discourse, emphasising the need for enhanced retraction visibility and improved citation tracking mechanisms.
Madlock-BrownCREichmannD.The (lack of) impact of retraction on citation networks. Sci Eng Ethics2015; 21: 127–137.
3.
FanelliDCostasRFangFC, et al. Why do scientists fabricate and falsify data? A matched-control analysis of papers containing problematic image duplications [Preprint]. Biorxiv, 2017. DOI: 10.1101/126805.
4.
LuSFJinGZUzziB, et al. The retraction penalty: evidence from the Web of Science. Sci Rep2013; 3: 3146.
5.
SteenRG.Retractions in the scientific literature: do authors deliberately commit research fraud?J Med Ethics2011; 37(2): 113–117.
6.
GrieneisenMLZhangM.A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature. PLoS ONE2012; 7(10): e44118.
7.
ShuaiXRollinsJMoulinierI, et al. A multidimensional investigation of the effects of publication retraction on scholarly impact. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol2017; 68(9): 2225–2236.
8.
NoordenRV.Science publishing: the trouble with retractions. Nature2011; 478: 26–28.
9.
SteenRGCasadevallAFangFC.Why has the number of scientific retractions increased?PLoS ONE2013; 8: e68397.
10.
WakefieldAJMurchSHAnthonyA, et al. [RETRACTED] Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet1998; 351(9103): 637–641.
11.
HeibiIPeroniS.A qualitative and quantitative analysis of open citations to retracted articles: the Wakefield 1998 et al.’s case. Scientometrics2021; 126(10): 8433–8470.
FangFCSteenRGCasadevallA.Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. USA Proc Natl Acad Sci2012; 109(42): 17028–17033.
14.
Bar-IlanJHaleviG.Post retraction citations in context: a case study. Scientometrics2017; 113(1): 547–565.
15.
Bornemann-CimentiHSzilagyiISSandner-KieslingA. Perpetuation of retracted publications using the example of the Scott S. Reuben case: incidences, reasons and possible improvements. Sci Eng Ethics2015; 22: 1063–1072.
16.
ChenCLeydesdorffL.Patterns of connections and movements in dual-map overlays: a new method of publication portfolio analysis. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol2014; 65(2): 334–351.
17.
JanRBanoSMehrajM, et al. Context analysis of top seven retracted articles: should Retraction Watch revisit the list?Libr Philos Pract, 2018, https://digitalcommons.unl.Edu/libphilprac/2016 (accessed 14 March 2025).
18.
KochanCABuddJM.The persistence of fraud in the literature: the darsee case. J Am Soc Inf Sci1992; 43(7): 488–493.
19.
SchneiderJYeDHillAM, et al. Continued post-retraction citation of a fraudulent clinical trial report, 11 years after it was retracted for falsifying data. Scientometrics2020; 125(3): 2877–2913.
20.
van der VetPENijveenH. Propagation of errors in citation networks: a study involving the entire citation network of a widely cited paper published in, and later retracted from, the journal nature. Res Integr Peer Rev2016; 1: 3.
21.
MongeonPLarivièreV.Costly collaborations: the impact of scientific fraud on co-authors’ careers. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol2016; 67(3): 535–542.
22.
FurmanJLJensenKMurrayF.Governing knowledge in the scientific community: exploring the role of retractions in biomedicine. Res Policy2012; 41: 276–290.
23.
NealeAVDaileyRKAbramsJ.Analysis of citations to biomedical articles affected by scientific misconduct. Sci Eng Ethics2010; 16(2): 251–261.
24.
NealeAVNorthrupJDaileyRK, et al. Correction and use of biomedical literature affected by scientific misconduct. Sci Eng Ethics2007; 13(1): 5–24.
25.
PfeiferMPSnodgrassGL.The continued use of retracted, invalid scientific literature. JAMA1990; 263: 1420–1423.
26.
LuwelMvan EckNJvan LeeuwenTN.The Schön case: analyzing in-text citations to papers before and after retraction. Int Sci Tech Indicat2018; 23: 1025–1030.
AzoulayPBonattiAKriegerJL.The career effects of scandal: evidence from scientific retractions. Res Policy2017; 46(9): 1552–1569.
29.
DinhLSarolJChengYY, et al. Systematic examination of pre-and post-retraction citations. Proc Assoc Inf Sci Technol2019; 56(1): 390–394.
30.
RubboPPilattiLAPicininCT.Citation of retracted articles in engineering: a study of the Web of Science database. Ethics Behav2018; 29(8): 661–679.
31.
RedmanBKYarandiHNMerzJF.Empirical developments in retraction. J Med Ethics2008; 34(11): 807–809.
32.
CampanarioJM.Fraud: Retracted articles are still being cited. Nature2000; 408(6810): 288.
33.
BollandMJGreyAAvenellA.Citation of retracted publications: a challenging problem. Account Res2022; 29(1): 18–25.
34.
HeibiIPeroniS.A protocol to gather, characterize and analyze incoming citations of retracted articles. PLoS ONE2022; 17(7): e0270872.
35.
AvenellAStewartFGreyA, et al. An investigation into the impact and implications of published papers from retracted research: systematic search of affected literature. BMJ Open2019; 9(10): e031909.
36.
BozzoABaliKEvaniewN, et al. Retractions in cancer research: a systematic survey. Res Integr Peer Rev2017; 2(1): 5.
37.
MoylanECKowalczukMK.Why articles are retracted: a retrospective cross-sectional study of retraction notices at BioMed Central. BMJ Open2016; 6(11): e012047.
GuengerichFP.Some changes in submission and handling policies at the JBC. J Biol Chem2015; 290(46): 28018–28019.
40.
MarcusAOranskyI.The paper is not sacred. Nature2011; 480(7378): 449–450.
41.
SchmidtM.An analysis of the validity of retraction annotation in PubMed and the Web of Science. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol2018; 69(2): 318–328.
42.
EliaNWagerETramèrMR.Fate of articles that warranted retraction due to ethical concerns: a descriptive cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE2014; 9(1): e85846.
43.
DavisPM.The persistence of error: a study of retracted articles on the Internet and in personal libraries. J Med Libr Assoc2012; 100(3): 184–189.
44.
TeixeiradaSilvaJABornemann-CimentiH.Why do some retracted papers continue to be cited?Scientometrics2017; 110(1): 365–370.
45.
DecullierEHuotLSamsonG, et al. Visibility of retractions: a cross-sectional one-year study. BMC Res Notes2013; 6: 238.
46.
ChengYYParulianNHsiaoTK, et al. ReTracker: actively and automatically matching retraction metadata in Zotero. Proc Assoc Inf Sci Technol2019; 56: 372–376.
BalharaYPSMishraA. Compliance of retraction notices for retracted articles on mental disorders with COPE guidelines on retraction. Curr Sci2014; 107(5): 757–760.
53.
KimSYYiHJChoHM, et al. How many retracted articles indexed in KoreaMed were cited 1 year after retraction notification. Sci Ed2019; 6(2): 122–127.
54.
FanelliDCostasRLarivièreV.Misconduct policies, academic culture and career stage, not gender or pressures to publish, affect scientific integrity. PLoS ONE2015; 10(6): e0127556.
55.
FanelliD.Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign. PLoS Med2013; 10(12): 1–6.
DevlinJChangMLeeK, et al. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In: Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Demonstrations), Minneapolis, MN, 2–7 June 2019.
60.
MadabushiHKochkinaECastelleM. Cost-sensitive BERT for generalisable sentence classification on imbalanced data. In: Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Natural Language Processing for Internet Freedom: Censorship, Disinformation, and Propaganda, Hong Kong, China, 4 November 2019, pp. 125–134.
SayeedM.BERT: a review of applications in sentiment analysis. Hightech Innov J2023; 4(2): 453–462.
63.
WhitlockEPSelbyJVDunhamKM, et al. Examining the role of funders in ensuring value and reducing waste in research: an organizational case-study of the patient-centered outcomes research institute. F1000Res2019; 8: 288.
64.
HorbachSPJMHalffmanW. The ability of different peer review procedures to flag problematic publications. Scientometrics2019; 118(1): 339–373.
65.
KraftDHPolacsekRA.Biomedical literature dynamics. Methods Inf Med1974; 13(04): 242–248.
66.
MoedHFVan LeeuwenTNReedijkJ.A new classification system to describe the ageing of scientific journals and their impact factors. J Doc1998; 54: 387–419.
67.
vandeWeertMStellaL.The dangers of citing papers you did not read or understand. J Mol Struct2019; 1186: 102–103.
68.
HsiaoTSchneiderJ.Continued use of retracted papers: temporal trends in citations and (lack of) awareness of retractions shown in citation contexts in biomedicine. Quant Sci Stud2021; 2(4): 1144–1169.
69.
McNuttMBradfordMDrazenJM, et al. Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA2018; 115(11): 2557.
70.
PragerEMChambersKEPlotkinJL, et al. Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing. J Neurosci Res2018; 97(4): 377–390.
71.
RisnesS.Need for a change in scientific publishing. Nord Perspect Open Sci2018; 3: 13–29.
