Why do published papers get retracted?

Retractions can feel unsettling. Authors and peer invest time, expertise, and trust in the publication process. So, when a published paper is retracted, it raises two immediate questions: What went wrong? Can the published findings not be trusted at all?

Retractions are not issued lightly. According to the retraction guidelines issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the purpose of retracting a paper is to correct the scholarly record when the findings are no longer reliable. Retractions are not meant to punish authors or call out peer reviewers. They are about maintaining confidence in the scholarly record. Listed below are common reasons for retraction.

1. Major errors that invalidate the results

One of the reasons for retraction is not intentional misconduct but an inadvertent mistake. Examples include coding error in the statistical analysis, a misclassified sample group, or the use of an inappropriate method that changes the core outcome. In some cases, such as this one, authors themselves discover the issue after publication and notify the journal. When errors undermine the main conclusions and cannot be fixed through a simple correction, retraction becomes the responsible option because, findings that cannot be trusted, cannot remain in the scholarly record.

2. Data fabrication or manipulation

In some cases, data is fabricated, altered, or reported selectively. This may surface when results appear statistically improbable, image panels reveal duplication upon a closer look, or when raw data cannot be provided upon request. Journals today are more vigilant, and digital tools make it easier to detect inconsistencies.

3. Plagiarism and redundant publication

Plagiarism is not limited to copying someone else’s work. It can also involve reusing large portions of one’s own previously published material without disclosure. Redundant publication, sometimes called duplicate publication, occurs when the same data or findings are published in more than one journal. In other cases, authors may submit the same manuscript to multiple journals at the same time without informing them about this. These issues sometimes escape detection and come to light after publication. When the originality of the work is compromised, the trust that underpins peer review is weakened.

4. Compromised peer review

In recent years, journals have uncovered cases where peer review manipulation comes to light after publication. This can include fake reviewer identities, fabricated reviews, or coordinated efforts to bypass independent evaluation. When the editorial safeguards are compromised, even if the research methodology and findings appear sound, a published paper may be retracted if someone discovers that the required level of scrutiny did not occur.

5. Irreproducibility and unverifiable findings

Sometimes a study cannot be replicated, and authors are unable to provide sufficient data or documentation to support the original results, when asked about this post publication. While not all irreproducible studies are fraudulent, persistent inability to verify key findings can lead editors to question the validity of the conclusions. In real interactions, this often unfolds gradually. Other researchers attempt replication and raise data requests and relevant questions in the process. If the conclusions of a published study cannot be supported and/or replicated, retraction may be necessary to prevent further reliance on flawed findings.

The scale and complexity of emerging unethical publication practices and inadvertent mistakes resulting from the publish-or-perish culture will likely continue to fuel retractions. This does not mean that peer reviewers should be suspicious of every submission. Peer review needs to continue being attentive, fair, and thorough. The situation calls for closer scrutiny, stronger detection tools, and greater transparency.

If you care about responsible peer review and stronger research integrity practices, we invite you to join the ReviewerOne platform. Connect with a community committed to thoughtful peer review, transparent dialogue, and higher standards in academic publishing.