There is a growing concern about the scale of journal retractions across the globe science system, and about the implications of the increase in retractions for scientific record and research integrity. This systematic review aims to further our understanding of existing research on retractions and offer recommendations for further research. This systematic review employs a topographical review approach. It examines the volume and growth trajectory of the journal literature on retractions since the first research paper on retractions published in 1998 and offers insights into the publication trends and patterns over this period, focusing on the composition of this knowledge base in terms of research contexts, research methods, and research themes. Vast majority of the scholarship on retractions involves quantitative overviews, often relying on basic descriptive statistical analyses of retraction trends and patterns. Results clearly demonstrate sensitivities and stigma around retractions mean that there have been very few published qualitative studies, and little attention to the perspectives and experiences of the retracted scholars themselves. Almost no papers have explored the links between the career pressures placed on researchers, the commercial focus of many academic publishers, and the role of 'paper mills' in facilitating authorship in indexed journals. The paper concludes with a call for more holistic and qualitative research on these aspects of retractions and makes a series of practical and policy recommendations.
Mertkan et al. (Sun,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: