Here’s our first post of 2016. The week at Retraction Watch featured a retraction from JAMA, and our list of most-cited retracted papers. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
It’s been a great 12 months for Retraction Watch. We took some major steps as an organization. Some highlights:
Ever wondered which retracted papers had the biggest impact on their fields? We’ve compiled a list of the 10 most highly cited retracted papers. Note that many papers — including the #1 most cited paper — received more citations after they were retracted, which research has shown is an ongoing problem. Readers will see some familiar entries, such … Continue reading Here are the top 10 most highly cited retracted papers, ranked
Ever curious which retracted papers have been most cited by other scientists? Below, we present the list of the 10 most highly cited retractions as of May 23, 2025. Readers will see some familiar entries, such as the infamous Lancet paper by Andrew Wakefield that originally suggested a link between autism and childhood vaccines. You’ll … Continue reading Top 10 most highly cited retracted papers
An investigation has uncovered fake reviews on 21 papers submitted to the Journal of the Renin-Angiotensin Aldosterone System. After taking a second look at accepted papers with an author-nominated reviewer, the journal discovered that the listed reviewers on the 21 papers, though real people, had never submitted a report. Eight of the papers have been retracted by … Continue reading Eight retractions for fake reviews lead journal to suspend author nominations
Guess what? We’ve got more cases of fraudulent peer review to report — our second post of the day on the subject, in fact. In the latest news, Hindawi Publishing Corporation has retracted 10 papers for “fraudulent review reports,” after an investigation of more than 30 papers that had been flagged this summer. The investigation found … Continue reading In more faked peer review news…10 papers pulled by Hindawi
Although many scientists fear putting their data to the test of replication efforts, due to the embarrassment they’d feel if their findings couldn’t be repeated, a new study suggests those fears are unfounded. The paper, published last week in PLOS ONE, found that scientists overestimate how much having non-replicable data will hurt their careers, and … Continue reading Having non-replicable data may not hurt your rep, says study
We’re presenting a Q&A session with Peter Wilmshurst, now a part-time consultant cardiologist who has spent decades embroiled in misconduct investigations as a whistleblower. Retraction Watch: A UK judge recently upheld two findings of dishonesty by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service against Andrew Dowson, director of headache services at King’s College Hospital and your former … Continue reading My life as a whistleblower: Q&A with Peter Wilmshurst
The week at Retraction Watch featured a new grant to our parent non-profit organization, a retraction from the NEJM, and our first-ever retraction. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Another domino has fallen for the infamous and prolific former anesthesiologist Scott Reuben. This time it’s a retraction for a letter to the editor that cites one of his since-retracted papers. The letter, published in 2001, argues that local anesthesia is a “safe, reliable, inexpensive, and practical alternative to the use of epidural, spinal, or general anesthesia” for … Continue reading Scott Reuben notches 25th retraction, for a letter to the editor