ArticleOpen respiratory archives
Trends and Characteristics of Retracted Articles in the Smoking Field: An Observational Study.
Article in Open respiratory archives. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The aim was to examine reasons for retraction and rates of article retraction in the field of smoking. Material and methods: We conducted an observational study and searched the largest database of articles that have been retracted. Results: We found 83 papers that were retracted from 1988 to 2024. According to the type of document (documents typologies), the majority were original articles (74 papers). The 83 documents have been retracted in 65 different journals. The retracted papers' citation counts were examined by searching Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus, and we have observed that a quarter (26.5%) of the 68 articles available in the WoS database had increased their citations, despite the fact that they were retracted works. The reasons for retraction were unreliable, inconsistent, erroneous, or missing data or an incorrect conclusion; duplication of previously published articles; duplication of images into the articles or in previous articles; conflicts of interest; the ethical/plagiarism policy and authorship issues concerns; fake peer reviews; data falsification/data error; articles retracted at the authors' request; and unknown causes of retraction and journal publisher's error. Conclusions: Unreliable, inconsistent, inaccurate, or missing data; an incorrect conclusion; or duplication/already published articles; duplication of images; and conflicts of interest are the main causes of retractions. Retracted articles have been increasing in number over the years, and additionally, the amount of time that passes between an article's publication and retraction is getting shorter. We verify that retracted articles indeed continue to gain citations after the retraction, some even more than before.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.