Who has the most retractions? Here’s our unofficial list (see notes on methodology), which we’ll update as more information comes to light:
- Yoshitaka Fujii (total retractions: 183) Sources: Final report of investigating committee, our reporting
- Joachim Boldt (94) Sources: Editors in chief statement, additional coverage
- Diederik Stapel (58) Source: Our cataloging
- Adrian Maxim (48) Source: IEEE database
- Peter Chen (Chen-Yuan Chen) (43) Source: SAGE, our cataloging
- Hua Zhong (41) Source: Journal
- Shigeaki Kato (39) Source: Our cataloging
- James Hunton (37) Source: Our cataloging
- Hendrik Schön (36) Sources: PubMed and Thomson Scientific
- Hyung-In Moon (35) Source: Our cataloging
- Naoki Mori (32) Source: PubMed, our cataloging
- Tao Liu: (29) Source: Journal
- Cheng-Wu Chen (28) Source: our cataloging
- Gideon Goldstein (26)
- Scott Reuben (25)
- Gilson Khang (22) Sources: WebCitation.org, WebCitation.org, journal
- Friedhelm Herrmann (21)
- Dipak Das (20) Click here for a full list of retracted papers
- Khalid Zaman (20)
- John Darsee (17)
- Wataru Matsuyama (17)
- Alirio Melendez (17)
- Robert Slutsky (17)
- Ulrich Lichtenthaler (16)
- Pattium Chiranjeevi (15)
- Nasrullah Memon (15)
- Erin Potts-Kant (15)
- Marion A. Brach (14)
- Bernardino Saccomanni (14)
- Martin W. F. Stone (14)
We note that all but two of the top 30 are men, which agrees with the general findings of a 2013 paper suggesting that men are more likely to commit fraud.
Many accounts of the John Darsee story cite 80-plus retractions, which would place him third on the list, but Web of Science only lists 17, three of which are categorized as corrections. That’s not the only discrepancy. For example, Fujii has 138 retractions listed in Web of Science, compared to 183 as recommended by a university committee, while Reuben has 18, compared to the 22 named in this paper. We know that not everything ends up in Web of Science — Chen, for example, isn’t there at all — so we’ve used our judgment based on covering these cases to arrive at the highest numbers we could verify.
Shigeaki Kato is likely to end up with 43 retractions, based on the results of a university investigation.
All of this is a good reminder why the database we’re building with the generous support of the MacArthur Foundation and Arnold Foundation will be useful.
Like Retraction Watch? Consider supporting our growth. You can also follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, and sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post.