Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Retraction Notice”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 73 records · Page 4Linked to original sources
PubMed1989

NLM's practices for handling errata and retractions.

The keystone of the scientific method is solid experimental design and reproducible results. The publishing of findings advances knowledge and establishes the basis for further research. In recent years, the foundations of this principle have been shaken as a small, but significant portion of the scientific literature is being flawed by the appearance of fraudulently produced research. Potentially as damaging are errors that result from poor editing and proofreading. Fraudulent articles and errors lead, at best, to misunderstandings and, at worst, to dire consequences in the treatment of patients. Errata and retraction notices are generally carried in the published literature but usually are not linked to the original data. Database producers, such as NLM, have the means to establish this link and to inform users of incorrect information in the source documents as well. This paper reports NLM's experience in bringing published retraction and errata notices to the public's attention and relates this experience to the library's overall interest in quality assurance.

Abstracting and Indexing↗
PubMed1998

Phenomena of retraction: reasons for retraction and citations to the publications.

CONTEXT: This study examined the impact of retracted articles on biomedical communication. OBJECTIVE: To examine publications identified in the biomedical literature as having been retracted, to ascertain why and by whom the publications were retracted and to what extent citations of later-retracted articles continue to be incorporated in subsequent work. DESIGN: A search of MEDLINE from 1966 through August 1997 for articles that had been retracted. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Characteristics of retractions and citations to articles after retraction. RESULTS: A total of 235 articles had been retracted. Error was acknowledged in relation to 91 articles; results could not be replicated in 38; misconduct was evident in 86; and no clear reason was given in 20. Of the 235 articles, 190 were retracted by some or all of the authors; 45 were retracted by a person or organization other than the author(s). The 235 retracted articles were cited 2034 times after the retraction notice. Examination of 299 of those citations reveals that in only 19 instances was the retraction noted; the remaining 280 citations treated the retracted article either explicitly (n = 17) or implicitly (n = 263) as though it were valid research. CONCLUSION: Retracted articles continue to be cited as valid work in the biomedical literature after publication of the retraction; these citations signal potential problems for biomedical science.

Periodicals as Topic↗
PubMed2026

Retraction of the landmark glyphosate safety publication by Williams, Kroes and Munro (2000) should be reversed.

The decision by the co-Editor-in-Chief of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, Prof. Martin van den Berg, to retract the 2000 review article by Williams, Kroes, and Munro has elicited widespread criticism within the scientific community. Issued in late 2025, the retraction decision cites procedural concerns including potential ghostwriting, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and omission of certain unpublished studies, invoking Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines despite lacking evidence of fraud or scientific flaws. This editorial argues that the retraction decision involves editorial overreach and misapplication of the guidelines. The alleged omissions stemmed from proprietary data access limitations that were disclosed in the original paper. Subsequent reviews by several independent expert panels and regulatory authorities with access to all glyphosate data, including the studies cited by the retracting editor, reached similar conclusions. Claims of ghostwriting were previously investigated and found lacking, including a declaration by EFSA as to the clarity of the conflict disclosures. The retraction's timing, reliance on litigation documents, and apparent biases that were not disclosed in the retraction notice raise questions of ideological interference. Absent substantive rebuttals based on scientific merit rather than speculative claims of inappropriate authorship and data access, this retraction decision sets a dangerous precedent for retroactive censorship, potentially chilling beneficial industry-academic collaborations and eroding trust in the integrity of scientific publishing. With the strongest conviction, we assert that retracting a paper without scientific flaws isn't protection-it is censorship. We therefore call for the immediate reversal of this flawed and unjustified retraction to preserve trust in peer-reviewed literature.

COPE↗
PubMed2005

"Is Cybermedicine Killing You?"--The story of a Cochrane disaster.

This editorial briefly reviews the series of unfortunate events that led to the publication, dissemination, and eventual retraction of a flawed Cochrane systematic review on interactive health communication applications (IHCAs), which was widely reported in the media with headlines such as "Internet Makes Us Sick," "Knowledge May Be Hazardous to Web Consumers' Health," "Too Much Advice Can Be Bad for Your Health," "Click to Get Sick?," and even "Is Cybermedicine Killing You?". While the media attention helped to speed up the identification of errors, leading to a retraction of the review after only 13 days, a paper published in this issue of JMIR by Rada shows that the retraction, in contrast to the original review, remained largely unnoticed by the public. We discuss the three flaws of the review, which include (1) data extraction and coding errors, (2) the pooling of heterogeneous studies, and (3) a problematic and ambiguous scope and, possibly, some overlooked studies. We then discuss "retraction ethics" for researchers, editors/publishers, and journalists. Researchers and editors should, in the case of retractions, match the aggressiveness of the original dissemination campaign if errors are detected. It is argued that researchers and their organizations may have an ethical obligation to track down journalists who reported stories on the basis of a flawed study and to specifically ask them to publish an article indicating the error. Journalists should respond to errors or retractions with reports that have the same prominence as the original story. Finally, we look at some of the lessons for the Cochrane Collaboration, which include (1) improving the peer-review system by routinely sending out pre-prints to authors of the original studies, (2) avoiding downplay of the magnitude of errors if they occur, (3) addressing the usability issues of RevMan, and (4) making critical articles such as retraction notices open access.

Attitude to Health↗
PubMed1983

Special notice.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Retraction Notice↗