Skip to contentScholarGate
LibraryBookshelfDeskReview StudioAssistant
Sign in
On this page
IntuitionHow it worksWhen to use itStrengths & limitationsCommon pitfallsApplicationsFrequently asked🔒 Read the full methodSourcesRelated methods
Cite this pageSpotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →
Home›Publication Ethics›Article Retraction Process
Process / pipelinepublication-misconduct

Article Retraction Process

Article Retraction and Correction in Academic Publishing · Also known as: Retraction Notice, Paper Retraction, Correction Notice

An article retraction is the invalidation of a published article due to serious flaws (data fraud, major methodological errors, ethical violations) that undermine its conclusions. Retractions are distinct from corrections (which address minor errors) and are initiated by authors, editors, or institutions when integrity is compromised. The first modern retraction was published in 1948. COPE published formal Retraction Guidelines in 2009 (updated 2019) that specify when retraction is appropriate, how it is conducted, and how retraction notices are recorded. Retracted articles remain in the literature with a visible 'RETRACTED' watermark, preserving the scientific record and warning readers.

ScholarGate
  1. Process / pipeline
  2. v1
  3. 3 Sources
  4. PUBLISHED
Cite this page →
Tools & resources
Download slides
Learn & explore

Read the full method

Members only

Sign in with a free account to read this section.

Sign in

Method map

The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.

Article Retraction Process
COPE Guidelines for Publ…Duplicate Publication an…Peer Review ProcessPlagiarism in Academic R…Predatory Journals and P…

When to use it

Researchers should understand retraction as readers (identifying retracted articles during literature review) and as authors (knowing when and how to request retraction if needed). Journal editors and institutional research integrity officers use retraction guidelines when investigating misconduct. Graduate students should learn that publishing retracted work is a sign something is seriously wrong and warrants scrutiny.

Strengths & limitations

Strengths
  • Retraction process provides a formal, transparent mechanism for removing fraudulent or unfixable papers from the literature.
  • COPE guidelines specify clear reasons for retraction, reducing arbitrary or political retractions.
  • Retracted articles remain in databases with visible 'RETRACTED' marking, creating a permanent record and preventing inadvertent citation.
  • Retraction Watch provides a searchable database that tracks patterns and helps identify prolific fraudsters.
Limitations
  • Retractions are rare (0.02% of published articles) and often slow; some fraudulent papers remain in circulation for years before retraction.
  • Not all retracted articles are widely known; researchers may cite them years later without realizing retraction.
  • Retractions are sometimes initiated for political or competitive reasons (journals competing, editor bias); COPE guidelines try to prevent this but it happens.
  • Self-retraction (authors requesting retraction) is less common than editor/institution-initiated retractions, suggesting authors often do not voluntarily acknowledge errors.

Frequently asked

What is the difference between a retraction and a correction?

A correction (or erratum) addresses minor errors (e.g., typo, incorrect citation, minor statistical issue) that do not invalidate conclusions. The original article remains valid; the correction is published alongside it. A retraction invalidates the entire article due to serious flaws (fraud, major methodological errors, ethics violations). The original article is marked 'RETRACTED' and removed from normal circulation, though it remains in databases with the 'RETRACTED' flag.

Can I republish a retracted article elsewhere?

Legally yes, but ethically no. Publishing the same work elsewhere after retraction without disclosing the retraction is misconduct. Reputable journals will discover the prior retraction and reject the paper. The right approach is to address the reason for retraction (fix the error, gather new data, etc.) and publish a new, corrected version explicitly noting the prior retracted work.

Who initiates a retraction—the author or the journal?

Either can. Authors can request retraction if they discover errors. Editors or institutions can initiate retraction if they discover misconduct or receive credible evidence. COPE guidelines recommend that editors give authors time to respond before unilaterally retracting. Most retractions are initiated by authors (~60%) or institutions (~30%), with editor-initiated retractions less common (~10%).

Does retraction mean the author committed fraud?

Not necessarily. Retractions can be due to honest errors, major methodological flaws, unintentional misconduct, or misconduct by a co-author without the requesting author's knowledge. The retraction notice should state the reason. A retraction due to 'inadvertent error' is viewed differently from one due to 'fabricated data,' though both require retraction. Judges that distinction by reading the retraction notice.

If I cite a retracted article, am I guilty of misconduct?

No. Citing a retracted article is not misconduct if you note that it is retracted (e.g., 'X found Y, but this was later retracted due to [reason]'). However, citing a retracted article as if it is valid (without noting retraction) is problematic. Always check the status of papers you cite, especially older papers by prolific authors.

Sources

  1. Committee on Publication Ethics (2019). Retraction Guidelines. COPE. link ↗
  2. Garfield, E., & Welljams-Dorof, A. (1990). Citation Data: Its Use as a Science Indicator for Measuring and Evaluating the Activity of Scientists. Science and Public Policy, 17(5), 359–375. link ↗
  3. Retraction Watch (2023). Database of Retracted Publications. Ivan Oransky & Adam Marcus. link ↗

How to cite this page

ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). Article Retraction and Correction in Academic Publishing. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/publication-ethics/retraction-process

Related methods

COPE Guidelines for Publication EthicsDuplicate Publication and Salami SlicingPeer Review ProcessPlagiarism in Academic Research

Which method?

Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.

  • COPE Guidelines for Publication EthicsPublication Ethics↔ compare
  • Duplicate Publication and Salami SlicingPublication Ethics↔ compare
  • Peer Review ProcessPublication Ethics↔ compare
  • Plagiarism in Academic ResearchPublication Ethics↔ compare
Compare side by side →

Referenced by

COPE Guidelines for Publication EthicsDuplicate Publication and Salami SlicingPeer Review ProcessPlagiarism in Academic ResearchPredatory Journals and Publishers

Similar methods

Research MisconductPlagiarism in Academic ResearchDuplicate Publication and Salami SlicingCOPE Guidelines for Publication EthicsData Fabrication and FalsificationPeer Review ProcessJournal Submission ProcessPredatory Journals and Publishers

Related reference concepts

Publication BiasPublication BiasSystematic ReviewCONSORT Statement and RCT ReportingType I and Type II ErrorsCritical Appraisal and Individual Evidence Evaluation

Spotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →

ScholarGate — Article Retraction Process (Article Retraction and Correction in Academic Publishing). Retrieved 2026-07-21 from https://scholargate.app/en/publication-ethics/retraction-process · Dataset: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20539026
Quick facts
Originator
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE); Retraction Watch initiative
Subfamily
publication-misconduct
Year
1948
Type
Process
Related methods
COPE Guidelines for Publication EthicsDuplicate Publication and Salami SlicingPeer Review ProcessPlagiarism in Academic Research
ScholarGate

A content-first reference library for research methods — what each one is, how it works, and where it comes from.

Open data (CC-BY)

Explore

  • Library
  • Search the library…
  • Browse by field
  • Fields
  • Journey
  • Compare
  • Which method?

Reference

  • Subjects
  • Atlas
  • Glossary
  • Methodology
  • Philosophy

Your tools

  • Bookshelf
  • Desk
  • Chat

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Contact
  • Suggest a method

Entries are compiled from published sources for reference. Verifying the accuracy and suitability of any information for your own use remains your responsibility.

© 2026 ScholarGate · A research-method reference library
  • Privacy
  • Cookies
  • Terms
  • Delete account