Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper presents a bibliometric analysis of 46,087 retractions from 10 major publishers between 1997 and 2026, revealing significant differences in retraction rates, reasons, and temporal trends. The study finds that normalized retraction rates vary by two orders of magnitude across publishers, with Elsevier and Hindawi at opposite ends of the spectrum. It also highlights the unique retraction profile of ACM, characterized by a high threshold for retraction and a concentration of retractions related to a single incident.
Normalized retraction rates vary by two orders of magnitude across major publishers, revealing inconsistencies in scholarly record correction.
Retractions are the primary mechanism for correcting the scholarly record, yet publishers differ markedly in how they use them. We present a bibliometric analysis of 46,087 retractions across 10 major publishers using data from the Retraction Watch database (1997-2026), examining retraction rates, reasons, temporal trends, and geographic distributions, among other dimensions. Normalized retraction rates vary by two orders of magnitude, from Elsevier's 3.97 per 10,000 publications to Hindawi's 320.02. China-affiliated authors account for the largest share of retractions at every publisher. Retraction lags and reason profiles also vary widely across publishers. Among the ten publishers, ACM is an outlier in its retraction profile. ACM's normalized rate is mid-range (5.65), yet 98.3% of its 354 retractions are related to one incident. Seven of the ten most common global retraction reasons (including misconduct, plagiarism, and data concerns) are entirely absent from ACM's record. ACM's first retraction dates to 2020, despite a catalog dating to 1997. ACM self-describes its retraction threshold as "extremely high." We discuss this threshold in relation to the COPE retraction guidelines and the implications of ACM's non-public dark archive of removed works.
