In science, mistakes are unavoidable. However, when a published article contains serious flaws or ethical irregularities, the repercussions extend beyond the academic community. A retraction, which is a formal notice that journals use to correct the scientific record, not only fixes an error but also reveals how the knowledge production system functions and, at times, how it becomes distorted.
A recent study published in the Iberoamerican Journal of Science Measurement and Communication analyzed retractions that took place between 2000 and 2023 in journals within the fields of business, management, and accounting indexed in Scopus. Its authors reviewed 365 cases and identified global patterns about when, where, and why scientific articles are retracted. Beyond the numbers, their research prompts us to consider how science addresses its own discrepancies.
The results show that the number of retractions has steadily increased since 2012, with notable jumps in 2015 and 2023. This trend can be viewed from two interconnected perspectives. First, it indicates a publishing system that is more vigilant and better at detecting plagiarism, falsification, or fraudulent reviews. Second, it underscores the rising pressure on researchers to publish in indexed journals, where productivity is often mistaken for prestige and metrics serve as strong incentives. In this environment, the line between legitimate competition and unethical behavior can become unclear.
More publications, more retractions
Geographic analysis reveals that countries with high scientific output, such as China and the United States, are responsible for the majority of retracted articles in absolute numbers. However, relative rates are higher in other regions, particularly in emerging economies, where academic evaluation policies often reward the quantity of publications over their quality. The phenomenon appears to be linked to institutional models that prioritize quick and quantifiable results, sometimes at the expense of scientific rigor.
One of the most striking conclusions of the study is that scientific misconduct is the primary cause of retractions, appearing in nearly three-quarters of the cases examined. The most common reasons include data manipulation, plagiarism, fake peer reviews, and the existence of “article mills” that sell false or manipulated research. Unintentional errors, such as mistakes in methodology or calculations, make up about 20 percent, while editorial mistakes account for just over 4 percent. These figures confirm that, although retraction is meant to correct errors, in most cases it is driven by deliberate actions that erode trust in science.
A revealing fact is that over 80% of retracted articles originate from high-impact journals, ranked in the top quartiles of Scopus. This indicates that misconduct is not limited to low-quality publications or so-called predatory journals. Even the most renowned titles can be sites of fraud or manipulation, partly because their prestige and visibility increase the temptations and pressure to produce quick and publishable results. The very conditions that ensure academic recognition can, paradoxically, create fertile ground for ethical violations.
Academic networks and shared responsibility
The study also examined collaboration patterns among authors involved in retractions and identified the formation of recurring co-authorship groups. This finding indicates that certain problematic behaviors can become systemic within specific academic networks, where trust and repeated alliances hinder the detection of irregularities. Retractions, in this sense, are not always isolated incidents but often reflect broader cultural and organizational structures.
The duration between an article’s publication and its retraction also provides important insight. Most issues are corrected within the first two years, although the overall average is 31 months. This indicates that, for more than two years on average, an article with methodological or ethical problems can remain in circulation, be cited, and even impact business or policy decisions. In fields like economics and management, where research often shapes strategies and public policies, the consequences of a flawed publication can be significant.
A sign of scientific maturity
The study concludes that retractions, far from indicating decline, actually show the maturity of the scientific system. They demonstrate the ability of academia to correct itself, as long as the process is transparent and the reasons are clearly communicated. However, they also emphasize the importance of strengthening researchers’ ethical training, improving peer review processes, and encouraging international cooperation to monitor academic integrity.
Poor research practices are not confined to laboratories or universities but can also influence economic, social, and political decisions based on scientific evidence. In a field where credibility is the main asset of science, each retraction should be viewed not only as a penalty but also as a chance to learn, review procedures, and bolster the culture of transparency.
Towards a more conscious science
The paper, published in volume 5, number 3 (2025) of the Iberoamerican Journal of Science Measurement and Communication, critically examines how institutional pressure, evaluation metrics, and lack of controls can make research vulnerable. It also calls on editors, reviewers, universities, and funding agencies to share the responsibility of maintaining trust in scientific knowledge.
Ultimately, science is not measured only by what it publishes, but also by how it recognizes and corrects its mistakes. Retractions, however uncomfortable they may be, are a reminder that academic integrity is a collective task, a work in progress that requires constant vigilance and ethical commitment at every stage of the editorial process.
Reference
Zahn Muñoz, C., Alarcón-Henríquez, N., Viancos-González, P., & Martínez Rojas, E. (2025). Retractions in business, management, and accounting journals: Analysis of documents published in Scopus between 2000 and 2023. Iberoamerican Journal of Science Measurement and Communication, 5(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.47909/ijsmc.250