How Ten Publishers Retract Research

TL;DR

This study analyzes 46,087 retractions across 10 major publishers, revealing significant differences in retraction rates, reasons, and practices, with notable variations in geographic and temporal patterns, highlighting inconsistencies in scholarly record correction.

Contribution

It provides a comprehensive bibliometric comparison of retraction practices among leading publishers, emphasizing disparities and the unique case of ACM's retraction profile.

Findings

Normalized retraction rates vary by two orders of magnitude among publishers.

China-affiliated authors account for the largest share of retractions.

ACM's retraction profile is an outlier with few retractions and a high threshold.

Abstract

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.