Analysis of Retracted Publications in the Diabetes Literature

Retraction serves as a critical corrective mechanism in scientific publishing, preventing the spread of flawed or misleading data. This study aimed to systematically analyze the characteristics of retracted articles within the field of diabetes research, highlight potential vulnerabilities in the integrity of diabetes research, and address gaps in understanding the nature and implications of research misconduct in this crucial medical discipline.

This study aimed to analyze retracted publications in the field of diabetes published from 1978 to 2024 using the Web of Science database. Information from the selected articles was obtained through the Retraction Watch Database. Extracted details included the journal title, type of article, country of origin, publication and retraction dates, number of authors, and reasons for retraction. The collected data were analyzed using descriptive statistical methods.

Between 1978 and 2024, our review revealed 316 retracted articles. The journals Science (n = 1517) and The Lancet (n = 742) accounted for the highest number of these highly cited retractions, while the journals Biomed Research International (n = 31) and Diabetes (n = 15) accounted for the most cited of these retractions. The most common reasons for retraction were investigations initiated by the journal or publisher and concerns related to data integrity. The years with the highest number of retractions were 2023 (n = 91) and 2016 (n = 40), whereas the majority of retracted articles were initially published in 2022 and 2021 (n = 26). Collaborative research involving authors from China (n = 137), the United States (n = 71), and India (n = 24) was most frequently associated with these retractions.

Safeguarding the integrity of scientific literature, particularly in high-stakes fields such as diabetes research, requires a fundamental shift from reactive retractions to multilateral proactive systemic reform. Cultivating an ethical research culture (changing incentives to reward research quality and transparency over quantity by Institutions and funders); empowering researchers (providing the skills for rigorous and ethical research through mandatory, ongoing ethics training); and ensuring vigilant publishing (enforcing clear policies, rapidly investigating issues, and performing transparent retractions to protect the scientific record by journals).