![\"\"](\"https:\/\/34.39.119.200\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/citation_study_q1_2025_scitility_argos_retractions-1024x865.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nOur data, covering a wide range of publishing imprints, each of which has over 2,400 articles published during the quarter, shows a significant variation in the percentage of articles that included at least one retracted article in their references. The industry average across these publishers is approximately 1.315%, but looking at the table clearly shows some imprints perform very well while others show room for improvement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What the Data Shows<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n\n- The data covering a wide spectrum of scholarly publishers has retraction citation rates ranging from below 0.2% to above 4%.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- There were over 9k articles published with known retractions in the references in Q1 alone.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- The variation may indicate different levels of capability and technical infrastructure across the industry.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
Why Retractions Still Get Cited?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\nThere are several reasons why retracted papers might still appear in citations:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n- Authors may be unaware that a reference has been retracted, especially if databases or citation tools don\u2019t flag them.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Reference lists may be compiled using older datasets or static bibliographies.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- In some cases, citations to retracted articles are deliberate (e.g., to discuss the retraction itself). Note that this is rarely the case for the bulk of incidental references and we worked hard in the above chart to remove the obvious cases.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Publishers are screening references using old or out of date databases.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Regardless of intent, the outcome is the same: retracted research re-enters the scientific record, risking the spread of misinformation and undermining scholarly trust.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\nHow Scitility Can Help<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\nManually checking every reference for retraction status is not feasible at scale, especially given the sheer volume of scholarly output. This is where tools like the Scitility Reference API can make a real and measurable difference. The Scitility Reference API<\/a> allows publishers, editorial platforms, and even individual researchers to:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Why Retractions Still Get Cited?<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\nThere are several reasons why retracted papers might still appear in citations:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n- Authors may be unaware that a reference has been retracted, especially if databases or citation tools don\u2019t flag them.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Reference lists may be compiled using older datasets or static bibliographies.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- In some cases, citations to retracted articles are deliberate (e.g., to discuss the retraction itself). Note that this is rarely the case for the bulk of incidental references and we worked hard in the above chart to remove the obvious cases.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Publishers are screening references using old or out of date databases.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Regardless of intent, the outcome is the same: retracted research re-enters the scientific record, risking the spread of misinformation and undermining scholarly trust.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\nHow Scitility Can Help<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\nManually checking every reference for retraction status is not feasible at scale, especially given the sheer volume of scholarly output. This is where tools like the Scitility Reference API can make a real and measurable difference. The Scitility Reference API<\/a> allows publishers, editorial platforms, and even individual researchers to:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Regardless of intent, the outcome is the same: retracted research re-enters the scientific record, risking the spread of misinformation and undermining scholarly trust.<\/p>\n\n\n\n