EDP Sciences logo
Subscriber Authentication Point
Search
Menu
Home All issues Volume 41 / No 10 (Octobre 2025) Med Sci (Paris), 41 10 (2025) 770-774 References
Open Access
Issue
Med Sci (Paris)
Volume 41, Number 10, Octobre 2025
Page(s) 770 - 774
Section Repères
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/medsci/2025162
Published online 19 November 2025
  1. Ioannidis JPA, Pezzullo AM, Cristiano A, et al. Linking citation and retraction data reveals the demographics of scientific retractions among highly cited authors. PLoS Biol 2025 ; 23 : e3002999. [Google Scholar]
  2. Wager E, Williams P. Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988-2008. J Med Ethics 2011 ; 37 : 567–70. [Google Scholar]
  3. Steen RG, Casadevall A, Fang FC. Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? PLOS ONE 2013 ; 8 : e68397. [Google Scholar]
  4. Fanelli D. Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign. PLoS Med 2013 ; 10 : e1001563. [Google Scholar]
  5. Gaudino M, Robinson NB, Audisio K, et al. Trends and characteristics of retracted articles in the biomedical literature, 1971 to 2020. JAMA Intern Med. 2021 ; 181 : 1118–21. [Google Scholar]
  6. Van Noorden R. More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 — a new record. Nature 2023 ; 624 : 479–81. [Google Scholar]
  7. Candal-Pedreira C, Ruano-Ravina A. Retracted studies in systematic reviews and clinical guidelines. BMJ 2025 ; 389 : r724. [Google Scholar]
  8. Byrne JA, Christopher J. Digital magic, or the dark arts of the 21st century— how can journals and peer reviewers detect manuscripts and publications from paper mills? FEBS Lett 2020 ; 594 : 583–9. [Google Scholar]
  9. Sanderson K. Science’s fake-paper problem: high-profile effort will tackle paper mills. Nature 2024 ; 626 : 17–8. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Coirault C et Fillatreau G. Les bonnes pratiques de signatures, et les conseils pour régler au mieux les tensions de co-autorat. - Lorier - INSERM 2023. [Google Scholar]
  11. Besançon L, Bik E, Heathers J, et al. Correction of scientific literature: Too little, too late! PLoS Biol. 2022 ; 20 : e3001572. [Google Scholar]
  12. Kwon D. AI-generated images threaten science — here’s how researchers hope to spot them. Nature 2024 ; 635 : 268–9. [Google Scholar]
  13. Van Noorden R. Exclusive: These universities have the most retracted scientific articles. Nature 2025 ; 638 : 596–9. [Google Scholar]
  14. Joelving F. Did a ‘nasty’ publishing scheme help an Indian dental school win high rankings? Retraction watch 2023. [Google Scholar]
  15. Kleinert S. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). COPE’s retraction guidelines. Lancet Lond. Engl. 2009 ; 374 : 1876–7. [Google Scholar]
  16. Haiech J. L’inconduite scientifique : la tentation de la fausse monnaie académique. Med Sci (Paris) 2025 ; 41 : 111–2. [Google Scholar]
  17. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2012 ; 109 : 17028–33. [Google Scholar]
  18. Campos-Varela I, Ruano-Raviña A. Misconduct as the main cause for retraction. A descriptive study of retracted publications and their authors. Gac. Sanit. 2019 ; 33 : 356–60. [Google Scholar]
  19. Rivera H, Teixeira da Silva JA. Retractions, Fake Peer Reviews, and Paper Mills. J. Korean Med. Sci. 2021 ; 36 : e165. [Google Scholar]
  20. Watts LL, Medeiros KE, Mulhearn TJ, et al. Are ethics training programs improving? A meta-analytic review of past and present ethics instruction in the sciences. Ethics Behav 2017 ; 27 : 351–84. [Google Scholar]
  21. Pinho-Gomes A-C, Hockham C, Woodward M. Women’s representation as authors of retracted papers in the biomedical sciences. PLOS ONE 2023 ; 18 : e0284403. [Google Scholar]
  22. Salvetti A. Femmes et recherche biomédicale : le plafond de verre se fissure-t-il ? Med Sci (Paris) 2025 ; 41 : 7–8. [Google Scholar]
  23. Marcus A, Abritis AJ, Oransky I. How to stop the unknowing citation of retracted papers. Anesthesiology 2022 ; 137 : 280–2. [Google Scholar]
  24. Hsiao T-K, Schneider J. Continued use of retracted papers: Temporal trends in citations and (lack of) awareness of retractions shown in citation contexts in biomedicine. Quant. Sci. Stud. 2021 ; 2 : 1144–69. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.