Abstract:The confidence that scientists and the public have in the reliability of the primary scientific literature stems from a cardinal feature of scientific knowledge itself; that it is public knowledge open to verification by anyone independently, and that its validity does not depend upon the authority of the individual/persons reporting the knowledge. Thus, it has been the norm that extravagant claims made on deliberately falsified data (or wrongly interpreted data driven by an overabundance of enthusiasm) were rare, and exposed early on after publication. Retractions, when made by authors due to honest errors, served to enhance the confidence in scientific knowledge, and is considered a demonstration of the inherent nature of scientific knowledge to correct itself, as it progresses.However, the large number of retractions by publishers that are now being reported has made a dent in this confidence. It was recently reported in Nature that there were over 10,000 retractions in 2023. The reasons for the retractions were multifarious, and included papers identified as coming from paper mills, papers where images and data had been manipulated and papers published after fraudulent peer review.Of special interest was the observation that the largest number of retractions were from special issues related to specific topics or conference proceedings. There is a legitimate view that special issues serve a purpose and can enhance the profile of a journal. Nevertheless, it is ironical that special issues today are not special, but have become common, and have lost the original high purpose for which they were intended; to bring together a limited number of papers by established scientists on an emerging topic of relevance and current interest, which could spur on further development.Editorial boards need to be alert to the increasing amount of malpractice among unethical practitioners professing to be scientists. The COPE documents on retractions provide sound and practical guidelines to minimize the publication of dubious papers which would need to be retracted later.

Chain retraction: how to stop bad science propagating through the literature

Decontamination of the scientific literature

Retractions: Stamp out fake peer review

Reliability of the primary scientific literature

Readership Awareness Series – Paper 9: Retraction of a Publication

Is biomedical research self-correcting? Modelling insights on the persistence of spurious science

US project seeks standard way to communicate research retractions

Collaboration and Its Influence on Retraction Based on Retracted Publications During 1978–2017

Reproducible Research Can Still Be Wrong: Adopting a Prevention Approach

The existence of stealth corrections in scientific literature -- a threat to scientific integrity

Frauds in Scientific Research May be Overcome with Distributed Ledger Technologies

Research Misconduct, Retraction, and Cleansing the Medical Literature: Lessons from the Poehlman Case

Optimizing peer review to minimize the risk of retracting COVID-19-related literature

Retracted: Information Fusion Algorithm for Big Data in Digital Publishing Industry Chain

Prevalence of nonsensical algorithmically generated papers in the scientific literature

A Multi-dimensional Investigation of the Effects of Publication Retraction on Scholarly Impact

Reducing the residue of retractions in evidence synthesis: ways to minimise inappropriate citation and use of retracted data

An analysis of retracted papers in Computer Science

High retraction rate of Chinese articles: it is time to do something about academic misconduct

Protection of the human gene research literature from contract cheating organizations known as research paper mills

Five problems plaguing publishing in the life sciences-and one common cause