Charts, free to share.
Five charts from the Phase 2 census, and one from the first citation-accuracy test. Each has its own page, a download that carries its source, a caption to paste and the data. Please credit SaneCite (sanecite.com).
40.7% of citations to retracted papers still treat them as support.
Out of every 100 citations made after a paper was retracted, 41 treat it as support, 56 mention it in passing, and just 3 flag it as retracted or unreliable.
Out of every 100 citations:
- 41treated it as support40.7% · 21,037 of 51,626
- 56mentioned it in passing55.9% · 28,863 of 51,626
- 3flagged it as retracted or unreliable3.3% · 1,726 of 51,626
Source: SaneCite Phase 2 census: 51,626 citations to 12,328 retracted papers, from open-access papers citing retracted biomedical papers (PubMed-indexed, retracted 1990–2023). Read by three AI models; pending human review. Data as of 14 Oct 2026.
Source: SaneCite Phase 2 census, 51,626 citations, data as of 14 Oct 2026 · sanecite.com/charts
Show the numbers
| Label | Citations | Share (95% CI, %) |
|---|---|---|
| Treated it as support | 21,037 | 40.7% (39.9–41.5) |
| Mentioned it in passing | 28,863 | 55.9% (55.1–56.8) |
| Flagged it as retracted or unreliable | 1,726 | 3.3% (2.6–4.3) |
| All judged | 51,626 | 100% |
51,626 citations to 12,328 retracted papers, each made in a year after the retraction. Left out: 4,044 citations to paperwork retractions (no fault found in the science) and 18 the three readers could not decide. Not corrected for reader error. Corrected using one AI reader's checks of 150 citations, the estimate is 38.1% (95% CI 33.5–41.8%). 95% confidence intervals (the likely range) come from re-running the numbers 400 times, drawing whole retracted papers at random (a cluster bootstrap).
34.9% of citations still treat a retracted paper as support more than ten years later.
In the first two years after a retraction it is 43.6%. Only a few in a hundred ever flag the paper as retracted or unreliable.
Treated it as support, by years since the retraction
Years after retraction · small numbers = citations that year · tallest: 16,108 in year 1
- Treated it as support
- Mentioned it in passing
- Flagged it as retracted or unreliable
Each bar mixes papers retracted in different years. Recent retractions can only appear in the early bars, so part of the drop comes from which papers are old enough to count.
Bars mix papers retracted in different years: part of the drop is which papers are old enough to count.
Source: SaneCite Phase 2 census: 51,626 citations from open-access papers citing retracted biomedical papers (PubMed-indexed, retracted 1990–2023); the year bars show the 51,370 made within 20 years. Read by three AI models; pending human review. Data as of 14 Oct 2026.
Source: SaneCite Phase 2 census, 51,626 citations, data as of 14 Oct 2026 · sanecite.com/charts
Show the numbers
| Years after | Citations | Treated it as support (95% CI, %) | Flagged it (95% CI, %) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1–2 | 25,915 | 43.6% (42.6–44.4) | 2.7% (2.1–3.8) |
| 3–5 | 13,700 | 39.1% (38.0–40.2) | 3.4% (2.9–3.9) |
| 6–10 | 8,277 | 37.4% (35.9–39.0) | 3.8% (2.8–5.4) |
| 11+ | 3,734 | 34.9% (32.4–37.2) | 6.3% (3.2–12.0) |
Bars count citations made that many calendar years after the retraction year (citations in the retraction year itself are not counted). The 256 citations made 21 to 36 years after are in the table and the CSV, not drawn. 95% confidence intervals (the likely range) come from re-running the numbers 400 times, drawing whole retracted papers at random (a cluster bootstrap).
2 in 5 citations still treat a retracted paper as support, even when the citing paper's published reference list shows the retraction.
That is 40.4% of 3,628 such citations, about the same as for all citations (40.7%). Only 12.9% flag it as retracted or unreliable in the text.
Treated it as support
Only 12.9% of the marked citations flagged it as retracted or unreliable in the text.
Source: SaneCite Phase 2 census: 51,626 citations from open-access papers citing retracted biomedical papers (PubMed-indexed, retracted 1990–2023). Dot = estimate; line = 95% CI. Read by three AI models; pending human review. Data as of 14 Oct 2026.
Source: SaneCite Phase 2 census, 51,626 citations, data as of 14 Oct 2026 · sanecite.com/charts
Show the numbers
| Group | Citations | Treated it as support (95% CI, %) | Flagged it (95% CI, %) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reference list says “retracted” | 3,628 | 40.4% (37.4–43.5) | 12.9% (7.6–18.0) |
| All citations | 51,626 | 40.7% (39.9–41.5) | 3.3% (2.6–4.3) |
“Reference list says retracted” means the word “retract” appears in the citing paper's own reference entry for the work. Most entries carry a clear mark: a title prefix such as “RETRACTED:” (2,664) or a retraction note (523). The other 441 mention it in other formats. On the 3,187 clear marks alone, 41.5% (1,322) cite the work as support. The mark may come from the authors' reference software or from the journal. 95% confidence intervals (the likely range) come from re-running the numbers 400 times, drawing whole retracted papers at random (a cluster bootstrap).
Only 1.9% of citations to papers retracted for misconduct flag them as retracted or unreliable.
For papers retracted for error it is 6.5%. Both are still cited as support about 4 times in 10 (41.2% and 40.0%).
Flagged it as retracted or unreliable, by reason for the retraction
Misconduct and error are still cited as support about as often: 41.2% and 40.0%.
Source: SaneCite Phase 2 census: 51,626 citations from open-access papers citing retracted biomedical papers (PubMed-indexed, retracted 1990–2023); 4,044 more, to paperwork retractions, are reported apart. Dot = estimate; line = 95% CI. Read by three AI models; pending human review. Data as of 14 Oct 2026.
Source: SaneCite Phase 2 census, 51,626 citations, data as of 14 Oct 2026 · sanecite.com/charts
Show the numbers
| Group | Citations | Treated it as support (95% CI, %) | Flagged it (95% CI, %) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Misconduct, fabrication or duplication | 31,947 | 41.2% (40.0–42.3) | 1.9% (1.2–3.1) |
| Error or unreliable results | 15,715 | 40.0% (38.9–41.1) | 6.5% (5.1–8.1) |
| Other or no reason given | 3,964 | 40.2% (38.0–42.3) | 2.6% (2.0–3.5) |
| Paperwork retractions (no fault found in the science) | 4,044 | 38.0% (33.9–42.9) | 1.4% (1.0–1.9) |
Reason groups follow the Retraction Watch reason codes. Paperwork retractions (out of date, replaced, moved journal, publisher duplicate) find no fault in the science and are reported apart. 95% confidence intervals (the likely range) come from re-running the numbers 400 times, drawing whole retracted papers at random (a cluster bootstrap).
In every subject, 31% to 43% of citations to retracted papers still treat them as support.
From biology and medicine to the physical and social sciences, business and the humanities. Only 1.7% to 4.1% flag the paper as retracted or unreliable.
Treated it as support, by subject of the retracted paper
A paper can have more than one subject; its citations count under each. Humanities rests on 194 citations, so it is the least certain.
The registered grouping: each paper sorted by its whole set of subject codes
Source: SaneCite Phase 2 census: 51,626 citations from open-access papers citing retracted biomedical papers (PubMed-indexed, retracted 1990–2023). Subjects as listed by Retraction Watch; the subject breakdown is a later check, not in the registered plan. Dot = estimate; line = 95% CI. Read by three AI models; pending human review. Data as of 14 Oct 2026.
Source: SaneCite Phase 2 census, 51,626 citations, data as of 14 Oct 2026 · sanecite.com/charts
Show the numbers
By subject (a later check, not in the registered plan). A paper with several subjects counts under each, so the groups overlap.
| Group | Citations | Treated it as support (95% CI, %) | Flagged it (95% CI, %) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Basic life sciences | 37,031 | 42.5% (41.6–43.4) | 2.9% (2.2–3.9) |
| Health sciences | 30,858 | 39.3% (38.2–40.3) | 4.0% (2.9–5.6) |
| Social sciences | 1,910 | 36.0% (33.1–39.0) | 4.1% (2.5–6.7) |
| Humanities | 194 | 35.1% (22.6–45.8) | 3.6% (0.4–8.2) |
| Environment | 907 | 34.1% (28.3–40.0) | 3.6% (0.8–7.8) |
| Physical sciences | 2,391 | 32.2% (29.2–35.2) | 3.2% (1.9–5.1) |
| Business and technology | 1,858 | 31.4% (28.7–34.2) | 1.7% (1.0–2.6) |
The registered grouping sorts each paper by its whole set of Retraction Watch subject codes: basic life sciences (BLS) only, health sciences (HSC) only, both, or a set that includes any other subject (such as chemistry or psychology, often alongside BLS or HSC).
| Group | Citations | Treated it as support (95% CI, %) | Flagged it (95% CI, %) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Basic life sciences only | 18,384 | 44.4% (42.9–45.6) | 2.1% (1.6–2.8) |
| Both basic life and health sciences | 16,730 | 41.3% (39.7–42.8) | 3.6% (2.2–6.1) |
| Health sciences only | 11,433 | 37.2% (35.6–38.9) | 4.9% (3.4–7.0) |
| Includes another subject | 4,997 | 34.0% (31.8–35.9) | 3.7% (2.6–5.0) |
| Business and technology only (not grouped) | 82 | 20.7% (9.8–31.9) | 0 of 82 |
The registered rule's code pattern skipped the business and technology code (B/T), so 82 citations to papers coded only B/T are left out of its groups; they are in the table, not drawn, and counted in the subject breakdown. 95% confidence intervals (the likely range) come from re-running the numbers 400 times, drawing whole retracted papers at random (a cluster bootstrap).
Beyond retractions: which citations go wrong.
1,000 random citations from open-access papers, each read next to the paper it cites. How the test worked →
9.7% of citations that credit a specific finding badly misreport the paper they cite.
About 1 in 14 citations overall (7.2%). Background citations: 5.6%. Methods and tools: 4.8%.
Badly misreport the cited paper, by what the citation is used for
Not in the test's plan; the same order held in an earlier, separate set of 500 citations (7.8%, 5.4%, 3.6%).
Not in the test's plan. The same order held in an earlier, separate set of 500 citations.
Source: SaneCite citation-accuracy test (batch 6): 915 random citations from open-access PubMed Central papers, 2015–2025. Measured against AI readers, not people; pending human review. Data as of 22 Oct 2026.
Source: SaneCite citation-accuracy test (batch 6), 915 citations, 22 Oct 2026, pending human review · sanecite.com/charts
Show the numbers
| What the citation is used for | Judged | Badly misreport | Share (95% CI, %) | Any error |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Credits a specific finding | 413 | 40 | 9.7% (7.2–12.9) | 117 (28.3%) |
| Background | 357 | 20 | 5.6% (3.7–8.5) | 50 (14.0%) |
| Method or tool | 124 | 6 | 4.8% (2.2–10.2) | 17 (13.7%) |
| All judged (incl. 21 data-source citations) | 915 | 66 | 7.2% (5.7–9.1%) | 186 (20.3%) |
1,000 random citation pairs from Open-access PubMed Central research and review articles, 2015-2025, citing an open-access paper with a PubMed ID; 915 could be judged. Answer key: two blind AI readers from different model families, disagreements settled by a third read. 95% intervals are Wilson intervals.
Copy a line, and its source comes with it.
- 40.7% of citations to retracted papers still treat them as support.21,037 of 51,626 post-retraction citations (95% CI 39.9–41.5%). Not corrected for reader error. Corrected using one AI reader's checks of 150 citations, the estimate is 38.1% (95% CI 33.5–41.8%). Phase 2 census, data as of 14 Oct 2026, pending human review.
- Only 3.3% of post-retraction citations flag the paper as retracted or unreliable.1,726 of 51,626 citations (95% CI 2.6–4.3%), judged from the text around each citation. Phase 2 census, data as of 14 Oct 2026, pending human review.
- More than ten years after a retraction, 34.9% of citations still treat the paper as support.43.6% in the first two years (25,915 citations); 34.9% after more than ten (3,734). Phase 2 census, data as of 14 Oct 2026, pending human review.
- Citations to papers retracted for misconduct flag the problem 1.9% of the time, against 6.5% for error or unreliable results.Both groups are cited as support about as often: 41.2% and 40.0%. Phase 2 census, data as of 14 Oct 2026, pending human review.
- 2 in 5 citations still treat a retracted paper as support even when the citing paper's published reference list shows the retraction.1,465 of 3,628 citations (40.4%, 95% CI 37.4–43.5%). Phase 2 census, data as of 14 Oct 2026, pending human review.
- About 1 in 14 citations badly misreport the paper they cite.66 of 915 random citations from open-access PubMed Central papers (7.2%, 95% CI 5.7–9.1%); 20.3% have some error. First citation-accuracy test, 22 Oct 2026, pending human review: measured against AI readers, not people.
- Citations that credit a specific finding badly misreport it 9.7% of the time.40 of 413, against 5.6% for background citations. Not in the test's plan; the same order held in an earlier set of 500. First citation-accuracy test, 22 Oct 2026, pending human review: measured against AI readers, not people.
- Nearly two-thirds of retracted papers were cited again after the retraction.Phase 1 count: 32,701 of 51,474 retracted papers with a DOI (retracted 2024 or earlier, found in OpenAlex), 263,745 citations in all, paperwork retractions left out. Last updated 21 Oct 2026, 10:45 UTC.
Phase 2 figures are pending human review: three AI models read every citing passage (the human check →). The 40.7% is not corrected for reader error; corrected using one AI reader's checks of 150 citations, the estimate is 38.1% (95% CI 33.5–41.8%). A citation here means one later paper citing one retracted paper, in a year after the retraction. Method and limits →
Everything is open.
- How to citeJoseph S. SaneCite retraction census: post-retraction citations to 22,553 retracted biomedical papers (protocol, code and data), version 1.2.0. Zenodo; 2026. doi:10.5281/zenodo.23539192. The latest version is always at doi:10.5281/zenodo.23358099. The 22,553 in the title is every retracted paper the census checked, not only those with a readable later citation.
- Check any numberEach chart links to its own CSV, and the census code and data are public, the code under the MIT license, on GitHub. The accuracy chart’s data is in the test result, and every citation can be searched, with the sentence that was read.
- Look up one paperSearch a title, DOI or PubMed ID on the checker page and open it to see how later papers used it, year by year.
- QuestionsWrite to hi@saneapps.com. Found a wrong call? Send the citing paper's PMC number and it goes into the next release.