The Retraction Epidemic in Science Across Publishers, Fields, and Countries

TL;DR

This study analyzes the global growth and distribution of research retractions, revealing exponential increases with variations across fields, publishers, and countries, and proposing incidence metrics for monitoring research integrity.

Contribution

It introduces normalized incidence metrics for retractions, models their exponential growth, and highlights global disparities, aiding targeted research integrity policies.

Findings

Retractions are growing exponentially with a 5-year doubling time.

Retractions are concentrated in fewer countries despite global research democratization.

Absolute retraction incidence remains low at 0.12% in 2021.

Abstract

Retractions serve as an indicator of failures in research integrity, yet most analyses focus on absolute counts rather than risk per paper. We use one of the largest open bibliographic databases to develop incidence metrics normalized by population: retractions per publication and per active author annually. Applying an epidemiological framework that models counts with exposure, we find evidence of exponential growth in retraction incidence, with approximately a 5-year doubling time at both the paper and author levels. These patterns vary significantly across fields, publishers, and countries. While scientific output is becoming more democratized globally, retractions are concentrated in fewer countries, creating a "concentration" paradox that calls for targeted monitoring. Despite exponential growth, the absolute incidence remains low (0.12% in 2021), allowing for corrective intervention. Incidence-based monitoring provides a framework for evaluating policies that safeguard research integrity at scale.