Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42516665›Full record

ArticleMedical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran2026

Analysis of Retracted Publications in the Diabetes Literature.

Somayeh Parvin, Mahshid Lotfi, Mohsen Nouri

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Somayeh ParvinStudent Research Committee, Department of Medical Library and Information Sciences, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Mahshid LotfiResearch Center for Health Technology Assessment and Medical Informatics, School of Public Health, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran.
Mohsen NouriAbadan University of Medical Science, Abadan, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8141-703X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Retraction serves as a critical corrective mechanism in scientific publishing, preventing the spread of flawed or misleading data. This study aimed to systematically analyze the characteristics of retracted articles within the field of diabetes research, highlight potential vulnerabilities in the integrity of diabetes research, and address gaps in understanding the nature and implications of research misconduct in this crucial medical discipline. Methods: This study aimed to analyze retracted publications in the field of diabetes published from 1978 to 2024 using the Web of Science database. Information from the selected articles was obtained through the Retraction Watch Database. Extracted details included the journal title, type of article, country of origin, publication and retraction dates, number of authors, and reasons for retraction. The collected data were analyzed using descriptive statistical methods. Results: Between 1978 and 2024, our review revealed 316 retracted articles. The journals Science (n = 1517) and The Lancet (n = 742) accounted for the highest number of these highly cited retractions, while the journals Biomed Research International (n = 31) and Diabetes (n = 15) accounted for the most cited of these retractions. The most common reasons for retraction were investigations initiated by the journal or publisher and concerns related to data integrity. The years with the highest number of retractions were 2023 (n = 91) and 2016 (n = 40), whereas the majority of retracted articles were initially published in 2022 and 2021 (n = 26). Collaborative research involving authors from China (n = 137), the United States (n = 71), and India (n = 24) was most frequently associated with these retractions. Conclusion: Safeguarding the integrity of scientific literature, particularly in high-stakes fields such as diabetes research, requires a fundamental shift from reactive retractions to multilateral proactive systemic reform. Cultivating an ethical research culture (changing incentives to reward research quality and transparency over quantity by Institutions and funders); empowering researchers (providing the skills for rigorous and ethical research through mandatory, ongoing ethics training); and ensuring vigilant publishing (enforcing clear policies, rapidly investigating issues, and performing transparent retractions to protect the scientific record by journals).

Indexed as

ArticleDuplicationEthicsPlagiarismPublicationRetraction

Identifiers

PMID42516665
PMCPMC13404472

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.