{"id":2101,"date":"2013-10-16T11:34:48","date_gmt":"2013-10-16T11:34:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/what-are-the-most-common-reasons-for-retraction\/"},"modified":"2025-04-05T13:59:25","modified_gmt":"2025-04-05T13:59:25","slug":"what-are-the-most-common-reasons-for-retraction","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/what-are-the-most-common-reasons-for-retraction","title":{"rendered":"What are the most common reasons for retraction?"},"content":{"rendered":"

The number of published papers being retracted is increasing dramatically <\/a>and is higher than ever before. Although retracted papers still represent a miniscule proportion of the total published literature, the rate of increase in retractions is alarming, as retracted papers tarnish both a researcher\u2019s career and the integrity of the literature itself.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Studies may be retracted for a variety of reasons. The reasons for retraction can broadly be categorized as honest error, intentional or unintentional misconduct, or others. The first two categories are\u00a0especially interesting, and I\u2019ll discuss them in detail. The third category\u2014others\u2014usually involves papers where the reason for retraction is not clearly stated in the retraction notice or is not clear to the journal editor(s). For example, authors may retract a paper that has been simultaneously submitted to and accepted by another journal. Although this would amount to misconduct on the authors\u2019 part for not having informed the journal of the duplicate submissions, the retraction would be listed in the \u201cother\u201d category if the authors do not disclose the reason for retraction.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The table below lists possible reasons that may feature under the former two categories\u2014honest error and unintentional or intentional misconduct. These are some of the common reasons, although the list is not exhaustive. Most retractions with these underlying reasons are initiated by the journal.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Honest error<\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Misconduct<\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n
    \n
  • Errors in sample or data<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n
\n
    \n
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  • Skewed statistical analysis<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n
\n
    \n
  • Plagiarism or self-plagiarism<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  • Inaccuracies or unverifiable information<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n
\n
    \n
  • Salami slicing (using the same data set to publish multiple studies)<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  • Irreproducibility<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n
\n
    \n
  • Data fabrication or manipulation<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  • Redundant publication (discovery that some aspects have already been published)<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n
\n
    \n
  • Lack of adherence to ethical protocols<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
    \n
  • Disputes over authorship attribution<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n
\n