Abstract:Purpose Recently, global science has shown an increasing open trend, however, the characteristics of research integrity of open access (OA) publications have rarely been studied. The aim of this study is to compare the characteristics of retracted articles across different OA levels and discover whether OA level influences the characteristics of retracted articles. Design/methodology/approach The research conducted an analysis of 6,005 retracted publications between 2001 and 2020 from the Web of Science and Retraction Watch databases. These publications were categorized based on their OA levels, including Gold OA, Green OA, and non-OA. The study explored retraction rates, time lags and reasons within these categories. Findings The findings of this research revealed distinct patterns in retraction rates among different OA levels. Publications with Gold OA demonstrated the highest retraction rate, followed by Green OA and non-OA. A comparison of retraction reasons between Gold OA and non-OA categories indicated similar proportions, while Green OA exhibited a higher proportion due to falsification and manipulation issues, along with a lower occurrence of plagiarism and authorship issues. The retraction time lag was shortest for Gold OA, followed by non-OA, and longest for Green OA. The prolonged retraction time for Green OA could be attributed to an atypical distribution of retraction reasons. Research limitations There is no exploration of a wider range of OA levels, such as Hybrid OA and Bronze OA. Practical implications The outcomes of this study suggest the need for increased attention to research integrity within the OA publications. The occurrences of falsification, manipulation, and ethical concerns within Green OA publications warrant attention from the scientific community. Originality/value This study contributes to the understanding of research integrity in the realm of OA publications, shedding light on retraction patterns and reasons across different OA levels.

Open Peer Review Correlates with Altmetrics but Not with Citations: Evidence from Nature Communications and PLoS One

What Does Open Peer Review Bring to Scientific Articles? Evidence from PLoS Journals

Does Opening Up Peer Review Benefit Science in Terms of Citations?

The Influence of Opening Up Peer Review on the Citations of Journal Articles

A Comparative Study on Characteristics of Retracted Publications Across Different Open Access Levels

The open access advantage considering citation, article usage and social media attention

Evaluating Open Access Advantages for Citations and Altmetrics (2011-21): A Dynamic and Evolving Relationship

Do altmetrics correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective

Effects of open access publishing on article metrics in Neuropsychopharmacology

The Influence of Open Access on the Academic Purification Effect of Retracted Publications: A Causal Inference Analysis

Benefits of Using Open Access: Citation Analysis

Does open peer review improve citation count? Evidence from a propensity score matching analysis of PeerJ

Does the use of open, non-anonymous peer review in scholarly publishing introduce bias? Evidence from the F1000 post-publication open peer review publishing model

The poor altmetric performance of publications authored by researchers in mainland China

Streetlight effect in PubPeer comments: are Open Access publications more scrutinized?

The Role of Positive and Negative Citations in Scientific Evaluation

Open Science under Debate: Disentangling the Interest on Twitter and Scholarly Research

A correlation comparison between Altmetric Attention Scores and citations for six PLOS journals

The open access effect in social media exposure of scholarly articles: A matched-pair analysis

Ten considerations for open peer review

Evaluating the Citations and Social Attention Difference Between Open Access and Paywalled LIS Literature