A study found nearly 90% of retracted brain tumor papers continued to receive citations, raising concerns about evidence-based patient care. The study analyzed 582 retracted publications and identified the most common reasons for retraction, including research misconduct and paper mill involvement.
A study published in PLOS One found that women authors comprise just 16.5% of first authors in a dataset of 878 retracted medical papers, despite accounting for at least 41% of first authors across biomedical publications. Women were also underrepresented among last authors and had fewer multiple retractions.
A new study found that nearly 1 in 5 citations generated by GPT-4o were entirely fabricated, while over two-thirds contained errors, indicating a major reliability issue. Researchers and journals must implement stronger safeguards to validate accuracy and authenticity.
A new study uncovers coordinated efforts of paper mills, brokers, and infiltrated journals to fabricate research, pay for authorships, and citations. Millions of dollars are involved in these processes, with the problem so widespread that it's outpacing legitimate scientific publications.
New indicators have been introduced to Taylor & Francis journal articles to inform readers when cited research has been retracted or updated. These updates ensure researchers are fully informed about the status of the research and can make informed decisions.
Scholastica's new integration with Crossmark allows journals to link article updates and retractions, ensuring the scholarly record's accuracy. The feature supports Crossref member organizations' efforts to maintain integrity and provide metadata for readers and downstream services.