Lists

Who keeps citing retracted work?

The retracted papers still cited most often as support, and the journals and authors whose papers do it most. Each entry was checked again before publication, as the box below sets out. Census data as of 14 Oct 2026; corrections through 28 Oct 2026.

How these lists were checked

Papers: Every citation counted as support was read again in full (23 Oct 2026) for each listed paper and each paper near the last place, 21 papers in all. For the 8 nearest the last place, each citation was read twice, independently, and a third reading settled any disagreement. The 2 papers left off after reading were judged on their second reading, not read in full.
Journals: A random sample of 7 to 10 support citations per journal was read again, not every citation.
Authors: Every support citation in every listed author's papers was read again (217 in all).

All of these are AI readings.

Everyone named was written to before publication, sent the evidence and asked to tell us if a reading is wrong. Replies received by 28 October are summarised and quoted beside their entries; statements written for publication are printed as written (5 on the page so far; all replies).

The full ranked tables

Every retracted paper (11,697) and every citing journal (3,822) in the lists' scope, ranked by the citations the census AI models labelled as support, with this page's corrections applied. Only the listed entries and the papers near the last place were read again. One held paper is left out until it is named.

All 11,697 papers (CSV) · All 3,822 journals (CSV) · What the tables hold

Retracted papers

The retracted papers most often still cited as support.

Ranked by how many citations, made in a year after the retraction, use the paper as support for a claim.

Together, these 9 papers are cited as support by 456 papers published after their retraction, among them 13 systematic reviews or meta-analyses and 12 trials; 156 of those acknowledge grants. In turn, 13,440 later papers cite those 456, among them 418 systematic reviews or meta-analyses, 212 trials and 6 guidelines. This measures reach, not harm. Each paper below says what it claimed, why its retraction matters and what it reached.

The retracted papers most often still cited as support, ranked
#	Retracted paper	Cited as support after retraction	Second reading
1	Visfatin: a protein secreted by visceral fat that mimics the effects of insulinFukuhara A et al., Science 2004. Retracted 2007: An Osaka University research integrity committee examined the insulin-receptor experiments and the university recommended retraction; the authors "continue to stand by our conclusions" but found "not all preparations of visfatin bind to and activate the insulin receptor". What it claimed Belly fat releases a hormone, visfatin, that acts like insulin and lowers blood sugar, a possible new route to treating diabetes. Why it matters The insulin-like effect was the headline, and the notice says not every preparation of visfatin acts on the insulin receptor. Reviews of obesity and diabetes still cite the paper as support. What it reached after the retraction Cited as support by 104 papers, among them 2 systematic reviews or meta-analyses, 44 reviews and 2 trials. Grants 34 of those papers acknowledge grants from 49 funders, most often National Natural Science Foundation of China (6), National Science Centre, Poland (4) and Instituto de Salud Carlos III (3). In turn 4,426 later papers cite those papers, among them 141 systematic reviews or meta-analyses, 116 trials and 1 guideline. Followed by reading The most-cited of them is a 2014 review that repeats the insulin-like claim and cites the retracted paper for it, cited 1,301 times since. 67 later papers cite that review and mention visfatin; we could read 56 of them in full. 7 cite the review about visfatin, and none of them repeats the insulin-like claim: they name visfatin among the inflammatory hormones fat tissue releases. paper · retraction notice · every citation	104of 314 judged (33.1%)	9 of 14its findings
2	Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19Mehra MR et al., N Engl J Med 2020. Retracted 2020: The authors could not get the raw data audited, so they were "unable to validate the primary data sources". What it claimed In records from 8,910 hospital patients with Covid-19, heart disease raised the risk of dying, but common blood-pressure drugs (ACE inhibitors and ARBs) did not. Why it matters It spoke to whether patients with Covid-19 should keep taking these drugs. Its data came from a database no one could check, yet later papers still cite it as support. What it reached after the retraction Cited as support by 80 papers, among them 8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses and 26 reviews. Grants 23 of those papers acknowledge grants from 45 funders, most often National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (3) and US National Institutes of Health (2). In turn 2,461 later papers cite those papers, among them 116 systematic reviews or meta-analyses, 22 trials and 5 guidelines. What we checked We read the three of those guidelines that are free to read: each cites those papers for other points, such as heart disease raising the risk from Covid-19, not for the retracted finding on blood-pressure drugs. paper · retraction notice · every citation	80of 365 judged (21.9%)	9 of 12its findings
3	Predictive validity of a medication adherence measure in an outpatient settingMorisky DE et al., J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2008. Retracted 2023: An independent statistical review found the results "misleading due to issues regarding the sensitivity and specificity" of the adherence measure.Most citations use the MMAS-8 adherence questionnaire and its cut-offs. What it claimed An eight-question survey shows which patients with high blood pressure skip their medicines; a score below 6 flags poor blood-pressure control. Why it matters The survey and its cut-off are widely used to measure whether patients take their medicines, including in trials. Papers that cite this paper as support use accuracy figures the journal now calls misleading. What it reached after the retraction Cited as support by 56 papers, among them 1 systematic review or meta-analysis, 2 reviews and 7 trials. Grants 18 of those papers acknowledge grants from 36 funders, most often US National Institutes of Health (2). Registered trials 3 trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov after the retraction list it among their references, enrolling or planning 1,230 people. In turn 225 later papers cite those papers, among them 16 systematic reviews or meta-analyses and 7 trials. What we checked Two of those registered trials use the MMAS-8 survey itself to measure their results (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06117722 and NCT06068309). paper · retraction notice · every citation	56of 183 judged (30.6%)	11 of 14its questionnaire
4	Association Between Physician Burnout and Patient Safety, Professionalism, and Patient Satisfaction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysisPanagioti M et al., JAMA Intern Med 2018. Retracted 2020: A University of Manchester panel "found no evidence of intentional fabrication" but, because of flaws in the review process, "cannot confirm that the results of the meta-analysis are wholly valid". What it claimed Pooling 47 studies of 42,473 doctors, burnout was linked to more patient-safety incidents, less professional care and less satisfied patients. Why it matters Its figures are used to argue that doctor burnout harms patients. The investigating panel could not confirm they are valid. What it reached after the retraction Cited as support by 53 papers, among them 1 systematic review or meta-analysis, 6 reviews and 1 trial. Grants 15 of those papers acknowledge grants from 21 funders, most often US Department of Veterans Affairs (2) and US National Institutes of Health (2). Registered trials 3 trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov after the retraction list it among their references, enrolling or planning 349 people. In turn 499 later papers cite those papers, among them 32 systematic reviews or meta-analyses and 10 trials. What we checked All three registered trials test programmes to reduce burnout in health workers and cite the paper in their background. paper · retraction notice · every citation	53of 203 judged (26.1%)	11 of 13its findings
5	The muscle-specific microRNAs miR-1 and miR-133 produce opposing effects on apoptosis by targeting HSP60, HSP70 and caspase-9 in cardiomyocytesXu C et al., J Cell Sci 2007. Retracted 2011: The authors retracted it over "the misuse and re-use of western blot bands" in Figures 3 and 4A, which broke the journal's editorial policy. What it claimed Two small RNA molecules in heart muscle push stressed heart cells in opposite directions: miR-1 toward death, miR-133 toward survival. Why it matters The paper is cited as a building block in research on heart attacks and heart failure; the figures behind it were withdrawn. What it reached after the retraction Cited as support by 51 papers, among them 19 reviews. Grants 15 of those papers acknowledge grants from 44 funders, most often US National Institutes of Health (6), National Natural Science Foundation of China (3) and British Heart Foundation (2). In turn 2,003 later papers cite those papers, among them 31 systematic reviews or meta-analyses and 10 trials. paper · retraction notice · every citation	51of 98 judged (52.0%)	11 of 14its findings
6	Increased muscle PGC-1alpha expression protects from sarcopenia and metabolic disease during agingWenz T et al., Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2009. Retracted 2016: A University of Cologne investigation "concluded that there was scientific misconduct": blots in Figs. 2D and 3B also appear in an unrelated paper, and a tubulin blot is duplicated. What it claimed Raising a muscle protein, PGC-1alpha, protected ageing mice from muscle loss and metabolic disease. Why it matters It is cited in research on age-related muscle loss (sarcopenia), but a university investigation found misconduct in its figures. What it reached after the retraction Cited as support by 31 papers, among them 1 systematic review or meta-analysis, 15 reviews and 1 trial. Grants 14 of those papers acknowledge grants from 21 funders, most often Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (3) and US National Institutes of Health (3). In turn 1,287 later papers cite those papers, among them 45 systematic reviews or meta-analyses and 36 trials. paper · retraction notice · every citation	31of 60 judged (51.7%)	13 of 13its findings
7	circRNA_100290 plays a role in oral cancer by functioning as a sponge of the miR-29 familyChen L et al., Oncogene 2017. Retracted 2019: The authors found "serious errors in Figs. 5c and 7b, resulting from the data collection process" and are no longer confident in the conclusions. What it claimed A circular RNA, circRNA_100290, helps mouth-cancer cells grow by soaking up miR-29 molecules, which made it a possible treatment target. Why it matters Later cancer studies cite the mechanism as support; its own authors withdrew it. What it reached after the retraction Cited as support by 30 papers, among them 6 reviews. Grants 13 of those papers acknowledge grants from 15 funders, most often National Natural Science Foundation of China (6). In turn 519 later papers cite those papers, among them 4 systematic reviews or meta-analyses. paper · retraction notice · every citation	30of 94 judged (31.9%)	9 of 13its findings
8	Spontaneous human adult stem cell transformationRubio D et al., Cancer Res 2005. Retracted 2010: The authors could not reproduce some of the reported transformation events and "suspect the phenomenon is due to a cross-contamination artifact"; five of the seven authors agreed to the retraction. What it claimed Human adult stem cells of the kind used in cell therapies can turn cancerous on their own after months in the lab. Why it matters It bears on the safety of stem-cell therapies and is cited in reviews of them. Its authors now suspect the cancer came from contaminated cultures. What it reached after the retraction Cited as support by 26 papers, among them 14 reviews and 1 trial. Grants 9 of those papers acknowledge grants from 15 funders, most often National Natural Science Foundation of China (3) and US National Institutes of Health (2). Registered trials 2 trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov after the retraction list it among their references, enrolling or planning 90 people. In turn 1,509 later papers cite those papers, among them 26 systematic reviews or meta-analyses and 9 trials. What we checked Both registered trials test stem-cell treatments in patients, for traumatic brain injury and for diabetic foot ulcers, and cite the paper in their background. paper · retraction notice · every citation Reply from the senior author, received 22 Oct 2026Dr Bernad says the 2005 paper was the first report of an apparent spontaneous transformation of mesenchymal stem cells in culture, at a time when these cells were being tested in many cell therapies, so it had a large impact on the field. Soon after publication his group found that the main conclusion could not be reproduced and was most probably due to a very small number of contaminating transformed cells that overgrew the cultures. He says the group contacted Cancer Research to offer a retraction; the journal preferred a short notice to the longer one they wrote (de la Fuente et al., 2010). He says the group approached the journal soon after finding the result could not be reproduced. He did not give the date of that contact by 28 October (the notice was published in August 2010). He proposed a note for later authors, printed below as he wrote it, and points to his group's later work on long-term culture of these cells.Soon after publication (Rubio et al., 2005) we realized that the main conclusion was non reproducible and that the putative spontaneous transformation was most probably due to a highly minoritarian number of a transformed cell line.Statement from the senior author, printed as written: Please, be aware that the main conclusion of the manuscript (Rubio et al., 2005) was non-reproducible and that the putative spontaneous transformation of MSC, upon in vitro culture, was most probably due to a highly minoritarian number of contaminant- transformed cells, that with time overgrow the cultures. Then it was retracted (de la Fuente et al., 2010). Therefore, continue citing this work as a proof of the potential of MSC to be transformed upon prolonged in vitro culture, is no appropriate and can induce more confusion to the field Our response: The retraction notice was published in Cancer Research in August 2010 (doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-2451). His group's later papers: Estrada JC et al., Cell Death Dis 2013 (replicative senescence of these cells in long-term culture is closely linked to aneuploidy) and Sepúlveda JC et al., Stem Cells 2014 (senescence abrogates their therapeutic potential in a mouse model of lethal endotoxemia). The entry stands: the citations counted were made after the retraction and use the paper as support.Changes since our letter: Reason changed from the Retraction Watch group "error or unreliable results" to the notice's wording: the authors could not reproduce some of the transformation events and suspect a cross-contamination artifact; five of the seven authors agreed to the retraction. Citations judged: from 135 in our letter to 134. One citing paper, which only mentions the work in passing, was published online on 13 July 2010, before the retraction, and is left out; the 33 citations that use it as support are unchanged. 23 Oct 2026: a check of the citing papers' full text found 3 of the 33 citations in our letter were not cited as support (two warn readers about the retraction, one credits the paper with something it does not report). A full-text check of the other 30 the same day kept 26: two more warn readers and two more credit the paper with something it does not report. Because every paper near the last places was read in full, the paper stays on the list, at place 8 with 26.	26of 131 judged (19.8%)each one read twice	12 of 14its findings
8	Held: a paper rose to this place after the 23 October corrections. It will be named here once its authors have been written to and have had the same time to reply as everyone else.
10	Selective killing of cancer cells by a small molecule targeting the stress response to ROSRaj L et al., Nature 2011. Retracted 2018: Problems with Fig. 1d and Supplementary Fig. 31b, and missing original data, "raise concerns regarding the integrity of the figures"; five authors disagree with the retraction. What it claimed A natural compound, piperlongumine, kills cancer cells but spares normal ones, and shrank tumours in mice. Why it matters Killing only cancer cells made it a lead for cancer drugs. The journal found problems with key figures and missing original data. What it reached after the retraction Cited as support by 25 papers, among them 7 reviews. Grants 15 of those papers acknowledge grants from 20 funders, most often National Natural Science Foundation of China (6) and US National Institutes of Health (2). In turn 542 later papers cite those papers, among them 7 systematic reviews or meta-analyses and 2 trials. paper · retraction notice · every citation	25of 93 judged (26.9%)each one read twice	13 of 15its findings

Second reading: of up to 15 citations drawn at random and read again (fewer where a later full-text check took one out of scope), how many cite the paper as support, and what they use it for. The sample was drawn before the full read; where the full read changed a citation's label, the final label is the one counted here and in second-reading.csv. Ties share a place. Each reason quotes or closely follows the retraction notice; where we have not yet read a notice, we say so.

Every paper on this list, and each paper near the last place, was read in full on 23 October: each citation counted as "cited as support" was checked against the citing paper's full text, and those that turned out to be passing mentions, warnings about the retraction, citations of the retraction notice or of something else, or that credit the paper with something it does not report, no longer count. For the papers at and just below the last places, each citation was read twice, independently, and a third reading settled the 11 on which the first two disagreed. These are AI readings. The papers left off after reading were judged on their second reading, not read in full.

Left off after reading

These papers would make the list on the count alone, but reading them showed the citations cite something the retraction does not touch, for example a tool or method in the paper that still works.

Retracted papers left off after reading, with the reason
Retracted paper	Support	Why it is left off
An enhanced transient expression system in plants based on suppression of gene silencing by the p19 protein of tomato bushy stunt virusVoinnet O et al., Plant J 2003. Retracted 2015: Image duplications in Figure 3b and in loading-control lanes of Figures 2g, 3a, 4e and 4f; the authors "accept that integrity of the scientific literature is compromised by the data manipulation".	167of 246	Citations use the p19 lab tool the paper describes, which still works (14 of 15 read). It was retracted over duplicated figures.
Global Increase in Breast Cancer Incidence: Risk Factors and Preventive MeasuresKashyap D et al., Biomed Res Int 2022. Retracted 2023: The publisher found "evidence of systematic manipulation of the publication and peer-review process" and cannot "vouch for the reliability or integrity" of the article.	29of 143	A review: citations use its summary figures, which come from other published sources.

Citing journals

The journals whose papers most often cite retracted work as support.

Two ways to rank: the count favours large journals, the share is fairer to small ones. The census reads open-access papers, so journals that publish everything open access are counted in full and others in part: large open-access journals rank high on counts partly because more of their papers could be read. Compare journals by the share table. These are the journals that published the citing papers, not the retracted ones.

Most citations of retracted work as support

Citing journals: most citations of retracted work as support
#	Citing journal	Cited as support	Second reading
1	Int J Mol Sci610 papers cite retracted work as support	654654 of 1,547 judged (42.3%)	9 of 9
2	Sci Rep570 papers cite retracted work as support	582582 of 1,731 judged (33.6%)	7 of 10
3	PLoS One487 papers cite retracted work as support	497497 of 1,586 judged (31.3%)	7 of 8
4	Front Pharmacol320 papers cite retracted work as support	348348 of 680 judged (51.2%)	8 of 10
5	Front Immunol299 papers cite retracted work as support	326326 of 720 judged (45.3%)	10 of 10
6	Front Oncol269 papers cite retracted work as support	313313 of 629 judged (49.8%)	8 of 91 of the papers read again has since been retracted (PMC10580988)
7	Heliyon276 papers cite retracted work as support	298298 of 650 judged (45.8%)	7 of 91 of the papers read again has since been retracted (PMC11033103)
8	Cancers (Basel)209 papers cite retracted work as support	238238 of 544 judged (43.8%)	6 of 9
9	Molecules191 papers cite retracted work as support	203203 of 488 judged (41.6%)	8 of 10
10	Front Cell Dev Biol134 papers cite retracted work as support	163163 of 295 judged (55.3%)	8 of 8

Highest share as support, among journals with 100+ judged citations

Citing journals: highest share as support, among journals with 100+ judged citations
#	Citing journal	Share cited as support	Second reading
1	Front Mol Biosci57 papers cite retracted work as support	60.3%70 of 116 judged (60.3%)	9 of 9
2	Noncoding RNA Res42 papers cite retracted work as support	58.3%67 of 115 judged (58.3%)	9 of 9
3	Cell Commun Signal54 papers cite retracted work as support	58.2%64 of 110 judged (58.2%)	8 of 8
4	Front Cell Dev Biol134 papers cite retracted work as support	55.3%163 of 295 judged (55.3%)	8 of 8
5	Cancer Cell Int116 papers cite retracted work as support	55.2%143 of 259 judged (55.2%)	7 of 9
6	Onco Targets Ther62 papers cite retracted work as support	53.9%62 of 115 judged (53.9%)	6 of 71 of the papers read again has since been retracted (PMC6885654)
7	Bioengineered77 papers cite retracted work as support	52.9%83 of 157 judged (52.9%)	8 of 8
8	Front Pharmacol320 papers cite retracted work as support	51.2%348 of 680 judged (51.2%)	8 of 10
9	Discov Oncol92 papers cite retracted work as support	51.0%106 of 208 judged (51.0%)	8 of 9
10	Front Neurosci48 papers cite retracted work as support	50.5%51 of 101 judged (50.5%)	8 of 9

Second reading: 10 support citations per journal, drawn at random and read again; citations of work retracted for a reason that does not touch the results were later taken out of the samples. Across the lists' scope, 40.3% of citations are support (the census headline, which also counts papers PubMed does not yet link to a notice, is 40.7%). With 100 to 300 citations, a share can be off by several points either way, so close places in the second table are not real differences.

Citing authors

The authors whose papers most often cite retracted work as support.

This counts citations, not intent. It does not say anyone acted dishonestly, and it does not judge whether a review's conclusions still stand: most of these citations sit in review articles that sum up many earlier studies, often in a table, and a co-author may have written that part.

The authors whose papers most often cite retracted work as support, ranked
#	Author	Papers citing retracted work as support	Rate	Reviews	Retracted papers cited
1	Mohammad TaheriORCID 0000-0001-8381-0591Co-wrote 22 of them with Bashdar Mahmud Hussen and 21 of them with Soudeh Ghafouri-Fard	24of 26 found by the census	10.5%of 228 tagged papers	23	34
	The 24 papers and 34 citations MicroRNA Signature in Melanoma: Biomarkers and Therapeutic Targets Front Oncol 2021 · review Zhang D et al., Biomed Pharmacother 2016, retracted 2020. Notice reason: results See the passageSubmitted 22 Sep 2020, before the retraction of 25 Nov 2020; accepted and published (22 Apr 2021) after it. X-Inactive-Specific Transcript: Review of Its Functions in the Carcinogenesis Front Cell Dev Biol 2021 · review Yang C et al., J Cell Biochem 2018, retracted 2020. Notice reason: results See the passage The emerging role non-coding RNAs in B cell-related disorders Cancer Cell Int 2022 · review Zeng H et al., Cancer Manag Res 2021, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passageSubmitted 9 Dec 2021, before the retraction of 23 Dec 2021; accepted and published (22 Feb 2022) after it. DLX6-AS1: A Long Non-coding RNA With Oncogenic Features Front Cell Dev Biol 2022 · review Zhao Z et al., Front Oncol 2020, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passageSubmitted 23 Jul 2021, before the retraction of 30 Dec 2021; accepted and published (25 Feb 2022) after it. The Role of Circular RNAs in the Carcinogenesis of Bladder Cancer Front Oncol 2022 · review Feng F et al., Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2020, retracted 2021. Reason unclear ("serious inaccuracies and mistakes", not specified) See the passage Interplay Between Non-Coding RNAs and Programmed Cell Death Proteins Front Oncol 2022 · review Lu J et al., Cell Tissue Res 2020, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage A review on the role of MCM3AP-AS1 in the carcinogenesis and tumor progression Cancer Cell Int 2022 · review Wang H et al., Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2020, retracted 2021. Reason unclear (withdrawn "due to the discovery of new results") See the passage Aberrant expression of miRNAs in epilepsy Mol Biol Rep 2022 · review Wu DM et al., J Cell Physiol 2018, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Assessment of Expression of Regulatory T Cell Differentiation Genes in Autism Spectrum Disorder Front Mol Neurosci 2022This paper has itself been retracted (Mar 2025). Huang W et al., Nature 2015, retracted 2018. Notice reason: results See the passage Role of PI3K/AKT pathway in squamous cell carcinoma with an especial focus on head and neck cancers Cancer Cell Int 2022 · review Si F et al., Exp Ther Med 2017, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Wang H et al., Cell Physiol Biochem 2017, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Zeng N et al., Mol Med Rep 2018, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Velu P et al., J Pharm Pharmacol 2020, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Implication of non-coding RNA-mediated ROCK1 regulation in various diseases Front Mol Biosci 2022 · review Zhao Y et al., Biosci Rep 2020, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Disease-associated regulation of gene expression by resveratrol: Special focus on the PI3K/AKT signaling pathway Cancer Cell Int 2022 · review Dai Z et al., Mol Med Rep 2015, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Exosomal circular RNAs: New player in breast cancer progression and therapeutic targets Front Genet 2023 · review Yang R et al., Mol Cancer 2019, retracted 2022. Notice reason: results See the passage Wang Q et al., J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 2019, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Importance of long non-coding RNAs in the pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment of prostate cancer Front Oncol 2023 · review Wang X et al., Int J Clin Exp Pathol 2019, retracted 2022. Notice reason: results See the passage Emerging functions and clinical applications of exosomal microRNAs in diseases Noncoding RNA Res 2023 · review Mao R et al., Life Sci 2020, retracted 2023. Notice reason: results See the passageSubmitted 13 Feb 2023, before the retraction of 18 Feb 2023; accepted (7 May 2023) and published (9 May 2023) after it. Tian J et al., Int Immunopharmacol 2021, retracted 2022. Notice reason: results See the passage Interaction between SIRT1 and non-coding RNAs in different disorders Front Genet 2023 · review Li H et al., Life Sci 2021, retracted 2023. Notice reason: results See the passageSubmitted 12 Dec 2022, before the retraction of 18 Feb 2023; accepted (16 Jun 2023) and published (27 Jun 2023) after it. Wang R et al., Front Physiol 2021, retracted 2022. Notice reason: results See the passage A review on the role of HAND2-AS1 in cancer Clin Exp Med 2023 · review Yu L et al., Onco Targets Ther 2020, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Role of circular RNAs and gut microbiome in gastrointestinal cancers and therapeutic targets Noncoding RNA Res 2023 · review Diling C et al., Aging (Albany NY) 2020, retracted 2023. Notice reason: results See the passage Antioxidant therapy against TGF-β/SMAD pathway involved in organ fibrosis J Cell Mol Med 2023 · review Guo NF et al., Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2019, retracted 2023. Notice reason: results See the passageSubmitted 15 May 2023, before the retraction (July 2023); accepted and published (2 Dec 2023) after it. Advanced approaches of the use of circRNAs as a replacement for cancer therapy Noncoding RNA Res 2024 · review Li X et al., Cell Physiol Biochem 2018, retracted 2023. Notice reason: results See the passage Wang L et al., Biosci Rep 2019, retracted 2022. Notice reason: results See the passage Liu Y et al., Onco Targets Ther 2020, retracted 2022. Notice reason: results See the passage Bian WX et al., Cancer Manag Res 2021, retracted 2023. Notice reason: results See the passage The published reference list marks the work as retracted MicroRNAs: Important Players in Breast Cancer Angiogenesis and Therapeutic Targets Front Mol Biosci 2021 · review Li JT et al., Breast Cancer Res 2014, retracted 2018. Notice reason: results See the passage A Review on the Role of AFAP1-AS1 in the Pathoetiology of Cancer Front Oncol 2021 · review Wang ZY et al., Mol Cancer 2018, retracted 2019. Notice reason: results See the passage Functional interplay between long non-coding RNAs and Breast CSCs Cancer Cell Int 2022 · review Xiu DH et al., J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2019, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage MiRNA-93: a novel signature in human disorders and drug resistance Cell Commun Signal 2023 · review Zhang L et al., Oncol Rep 2017, retracted 2020. Notice reason: results See the passage Shang Y et al., Cell Cycle 2019, retracted 2022. Notice reason: results See the passage
2	Bashdar Mahmud HussenORCID 0000-0003-1060-6527Co-wrote 22 of them with Mohammad Taheri and 19 of them with Soudeh Ghafouri-Fard	22of 24 found by the census	17.7%of 124 tagged papers	21	32
	The 22 papers and 32 citations The emerging role non-coding RNAs in B cell-related disorders Cancer Cell Int 2022 · review Zeng H et al., Cancer Manag Res 2021, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passageSubmitted 9 Dec 2021, before the retraction of 23 Dec 2021; accepted and published (22 Feb 2022) after it. DLX6-AS1: A Long Non-coding RNA With Oncogenic Features Front Cell Dev Biol 2022 · review Zhao Z et al., Front Oncol 2020, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passageSubmitted 23 Jul 2021, before the retraction of 30 Dec 2021; accepted and published (25 Feb 2022) after it. The Role of Circular RNAs in the Carcinogenesis of Bladder Cancer Front Oncol 2022 · review Feng F et al., Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2020, retracted 2021. Reason unclear ("serious inaccuracies and mistakes", not specified) See the passage Interplay Between Non-Coding RNAs and Programmed Cell Death Proteins Front Oncol 2022 · review Lu J et al., Cell Tissue Res 2020, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage A review on the role of MCM3AP-AS1 in the carcinogenesis and tumor progression Cancer Cell Int 2022 · review Wang H et al., Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2020, retracted 2021. Reason unclear (withdrawn "due to the discovery of new results") See the passage Aberrant expression of miRNAs in epilepsy Mol Biol Rep 2022 · review Wu DM et al., J Cell Physiol 2018, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Assessment of Expression of Regulatory T Cell Differentiation Genes in Autism Spectrum Disorder Front Mol Neurosci 2022This paper has itself been retracted (Mar 2025). Huang W et al., Nature 2015, retracted 2018. Notice reason: results See the passage Role of PI3K/AKT pathway in squamous cell carcinoma with an especial focus on head and neck cancers Cancer Cell Int 2022 · review Si F et al., Exp Ther Med 2017, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Wang H et al., Cell Physiol Biochem 2017, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Zeng N et al., Mol Med Rep 2018, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Velu P et al., J Pharm Pharmacol 2020, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Implication of non-coding RNA-mediated ROCK1 regulation in various diseases Front Mol Biosci 2022 · review Zhao Y et al., Biosci Rep 2020, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Disease-associated regulation of gene expression by resveratrol: Special focus on the PI3K/AKT signaling pathway Cancer Cell Int 2022 · review Dai Z et al., Mol Med Rep 2015, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Exosomal circular RNAs: New player in breast cancer progression and therapeutic targets Front Genet 2023 · review Yang R et al., Mol Cancer 2019, retracted 2022. Notice reason: results See the passage Wang Q et al., J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 2019, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Importance of long non-coding RNAs in the pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment of prostate cancer Front Oncol 2023 · review Wang X et al., Int J Clin Exp Pathol 2019, retracted 2022. Notice reason: results See the passage Emerging functions and clinical applications of exosomal microRNAs in diseases Noncoding RNA Res 2023 · review Mao R et al., Life Sci 2020, retracted 2023. Notice reason: results See the passageSubmitted 13 Feb 2023, before the retraction of 18 Feb 2023; accepted (7 May 2023) and published (9 May 2023) after it. Tian J et al., Int Immunopharmacol 2021, retracted 2022. Notice reason: results See the passage Interaction between SIRT1 and non-coding RNAs in different disorders Front Genet 2023 · review Li H et al., Life Sci 2021, retracted 2023. Notice reason: results See the passageSubmitted 12 Dec 2022, before the retraction of 18 Feb 2023; accepted (16 Jun 2023) and published (27 Jun 2023) after it. Wang R et al., Front Physiol 2021, retracted 2022. Notice reason: results See the passage A review on the role of HAND2-AS1 in cancer Clin Exp Med 2023 · review Yu L et al., Onco Targets Ther 2020, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Role of circular RNAs and gut microbiome in gastrointestinal cancers and therapeutic targets Noncoding RNA Res 2023 · review Diling C et al., Aging (Albany NY) 2020, retracted 2023. Notice reason: results See the passage Antioxidant therapy against TGF-β/SMAD pathway involved in organ fibrosis J Cell Mol Med 2023 · review Guo NF et al., Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2019, retracted 2023. Notice reason: results See the passageSubmitted 15 May 2023, before the retraction (July 2023); accepted and published (2 Dec 2023) after it. Advanced approaches of the use of circRNAs as a replacement for cancer therapy Noncoding RNA Res 2024 · review Li X et al., Cell Physiol Biochem 2018, retracted 2023. Notice reason: results See the passage Wang L et al., Biosci Rep 2019, retracted 2022. Notice reason: results See the passage Liu Y et al., Onco Targets Ther 2020, retracted 2022. Notice reason: results See the passage Bian WX et al., Cancer Manag Res 2021, retracted 2023. Notice reason: results See the passage The published reference list marks the work as retracted MicroRNAs: Important Players in Breast Cancer Angiogenesis and Therapeutic Targets Front Mol Biosci 2021 · review Li JT et al., Breast Cancer Res 2014, retracted 2018. Notice reason: results See the passage A Review on the Role of AFAP1-AS1 in the Pathoetiology of Cancer Front Oncol 2021 · review Wang ZY et al., Mol Cancer 2018, retracted 2019. Notice reason: results See the passage Functional interplay between long non-coding RNAs and Breast CSCs Cancer Cell Int 2022 · review Xiu DH et al., J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2019, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage MiRNA-93: a novel signature in human disorders and drug resistance Cell Commun Signal 2023 · review Zhang L et al., Oncol Rep 2017, retracted 2020. Notice reason: results See the passage Shang Y et al., Cell Cycle 2019, retracted 2022. Notice reason: results See the passage
2	Soudeh Ghafouri-FardORCID 0000-0002-0223-499XCo-wrote 21 of them with Mohammad Taheri and 19 of them with Bashdar Mahmud Hussen	22of 24 found by the census	8.2%of 268 tagged papers	21	28
	The 22 papers and 28 citations MicroRNA Signature in Melanoma: Biomarkers and Therapeutic Targets Front Oncol 2021 · review Zhang D et al., Biomed Pharmacother 2016, retracted 2020. Notice reason: results See the passageSubmitted 22 Sep 2020, before the retraction of 25 Nov 2020; accepted and published (22 Apr 2021) after it. X-Inactive-Specific Transcript: Review of Its Functions in the Carcinogenesis Front Cell Dev Biol 2021 · review Yang C et al., J Cell Biochem 2018, retracted 2020. Notice reason: results See the passage The emerging role non-coding RNAs in B cell-related disorders Cancer Cell Int 2022 · review Zeng H et al., Cancer Manag Res 2021, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passageSubmitted 9 Dec 2021, before the retraction of 23 Dec 2021; accepted and published (22 Feb 2022) after it. DLX6-AS1: A Long Non-coding RNA With Oncogenic Features Front Cell Dev Biol 2022 · review Zhao Z et al., Front Oncol 2020, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passageSubmitted 23 Jul 2021, before the retraction of 30 Dec 2021; accepted and published (25 Feb 2022) after it. The Role of Circular RNAs in the Carcinogenesis of Bladder Cancer Front Oncol 2022 · review Feng F et al., Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2020, retracted 2021. Reason unclear ("serious inaccuracies and mistakes", not specified) See the passage Interplay Between Non-Coding RNAs and Programmed Cell Death Proteins Front Oncol 2022 · review Lu J et al., Cell Tissue Res 2020, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage A review on the role of MCM3AP-AS1 in the carcinogenesis and tumor progression Cancer Cell Int 2022 · review Wang H et al., Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2020, retracted 2021. Reason unclear (withdrawn "due to the discovery of new results") See the passage Aberrant expression of miRNAs in epilepsy Mol Biol Rep 2022 · review Wu DM et al., J Cell Physiol 2018, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Assessment of Expression of Regulatory T Cell Differentiation Genes in Autism Spectrum Disorder Front Mol Neurosci 2022This paper has itself been retracted (Mar 2025). Huang W et al., Nature 2015, retracted 2018. Notice reason: results See the passage Role of PI3K/AKT pathway in squamous cell carcinoma with an especial focus on head and neck cancers Cancer Cell Int 2022 · review Si F et al., Exp Ther Med 2017, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Wang H et al., Cell Physiol Biochem 2017, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Zeng N et al., Mol Med Rep 2018, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Velu P et al., J Pharm Pharmacol 2020, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage A review on the importance of miRNA-135 in human diseases Front Genet 2022 · review Xie XJ et al., Biosci Rep 2017, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Implication of non-coding RNA-mediated ROCK1 regulation in various diseases Front Mol Biosci 2022 · review Zhao Y et al., Biosci Rep 2020, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Disease-associated regulation of gene expression by resveratrol: Special focus on the PI3K/AKT signaling pathway Cancer Cell Int 2022 · review Dai Z et al., Mol Med Rep 2015, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Exosomal circular RNAs: New player in breast cancer progression and therapeutic targets Front Genet 2023 · review Yang R et al., Mol Cancer 2019, retracted 2022. Notice reason: results See the passage Wang Q et al., J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 2019, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Importance of long non-coding RNAs in the pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment of prostate cancer Front Oncol 2023 · review Wang X et al., Int J Clin Exp Pathol 2019, retracted 2022. Notice reason: results See the passage Emerging functions and clinical applications of exosomal microRNAs in diseases Noncoding RNA Res 2023 · review Mao R et al., Life Sci 2020, retracted 2023. Notice reason: results See the passageSubmitted 13 Feb 2023, before the retraction of 18 Feb 2023; accepted (7 May 2023) and published (9 May 2023) after it. Tian J et al., Int Immunopharmacol 2021, retracted 2022. Notice reason: results See the passage Interaction between SIRT1 and non-coding RNAs in different disorders Front Genet 2023 · review Li H et al., Life Sci 2021, retracted 2023. Notice reason: results See the passageSubmitted 12 Dec 2022, before the retraction of 18 Feb 2023; accepted (16 Jun 2023) and published (27 Jun 2023) after it. Wang R et al., Front Physiol 2021, retracted 2022. Notice reason: results See the passage A review on the role of HAND2-AS1 in cancer Clin Exp Med 2023 · review Yu L et al., Onco Targets Ther 2020, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Antioxidant therapy against TGF-β/SMAD pathway involved in organ fibrosis J Cell Mol Med 2023 · review Guo NF et al., Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2019, retracted 2023. Notice reason: results See the passageSubmitted 15 May 2023, before the retraction (July 2023); accepted and published (2 Dec 2023) after it. The published reference list marks the work as retracted MicroRNAs: Important Players in Breast Cancer Angiogenesis and Therapeutic Targets Front Mol Biosci 2021 · review Li JT et al., Breast Cancer Res 2014, retracted 2018. Notice reason: results See the passage A Review on the Role of AFAP1-AS1 in the Pathoetiology of Cancer Front Oncol 2021 · review Wang ZY et al., Mol Cancer 2018, retracted 2019. Notice reason: results See the passage Functional interplay between long non-coding RNAs and Breast CSCs Cancer Cell Int 2022 · review Xiu DH et al., J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2019, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage
4	Michael R HamblinORCID 0000-0001-6431-4605	9of 9 found by the census	4.9%of 184 tagged papers	9	34
	The 9 papers and 34 citations TGF-β and WNT signaling pathways in cardiac fibrosis: non-coding RNAs come into focus Cell Commun Signal 2020 · review Nagalingam RS et al., J Biol Chem 2014, retracted 2017. Notice reason: results See the passage Role of exosomes in malignant glioma: microRNAs and proteins in pathogenesis and diagnosis Cell Commun Signal 2020 · review Zhu L et al., Front Immunol 2018, retracted 2019. Notice reason: results See the passage Non-coding RNAs and glioblastoma: Insight into their roles in metastasis Mol Ther Oncolytics 2021 · reviewSubmission date not available. Published online 22 Dec 2021; the works it cites were retracted between July and November 2021. Li J et al., Int J Oncol 2015, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Peng T et al., Am J Transl Res 2016, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Wu DM et al., Cell Physiol Biochem 2018, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Chi G et al., Artif Cells Nanomed Biotechnol 2020, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Gao ZG et al., Anat Rec (Hoboken) 2020, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Kong F et al., Cancer Biother Radiopharm 2020, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Zheng D et al., Cell Cycle 2020, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Lysophosphatidic Acid Signaling and microRNAs: New Roles in Various Cancers Front Oncol 2022 · review Li GC et al., J Cell Physiol 2019, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage MicroRNA-383: A tumor suppressor miRNA in human cancer Front Cell Dev Biol 2022 · review Gao J et al., Cancer Manag Res 2020, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Epigenetic regulation in myocardial infarction: Non-coding RNAs and exosomal non-coding RNAs Front Cardiovasc Med 2022 · review Gu J et al., Cell Physiol Biochem 2018, retracted 2020. Notice reason: results See the passage Kong F et al., Biomed Pharmacother 2018, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage MiRNA-related metastasis in oral cancer: moving and shaking Cancer Cell Int 2023 · review Qiao B et al., Sci Rep 2017, retracted 2020. Notice reason: results See the passage MicroRNAs, long non-coding RNAs, and circular RNAs and gynecological cancers: focus on metastasis Front Oncol 2023 · reviewThis paper has itself been retracted (Sep 2026). An expression of concern came first, in Jan 2026. Xie P et al., Cancer Biomark 2017, retracted 2023 (notice online 11 Dec 2022). Notice reason: results See the passage Li Q et al., Biosci Rep 2018, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Jiang H et al., J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2018, retracted 2022. Notice reason: results See the passage Liu X et al., Biomed Pharmacother 2018, retracted 2022. Notice reason: results See the passage Su Y et al., DNA Cell Biol 2018, retracted 2022. Notice reason: results See the passage Yin S et al., Exp Ther Med 2019, retracted 2022. Notice reason: results See the passage Gao H et al., Cell Cycle 2019, retracted 2022. Notice reason: results See the passage Kapora E et al., Biosci Rep 2019, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Wang Q et al., Exp Ther Med 2019, retracted 2022. Notice reason: results See the passage Zhu H et al., Cell Cycle 2019, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Chen P et al., Biosci Rep 2019, retracted 2022. Notice reason: results See the passage Yang X et al., Anat Rec (Hoboken) 2020, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Liu X et al., Biomed Pharmacother 2020, retracted 2022. Notice reason: results See the passage Wu F et al., Onco Targets Ther 2020, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Yang T et al., Biosci Rep 2020, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Wang Y et al., Cancer Manag Res 2020, retracted 2022. Notice reason: results See the passage Wang K et al., Cancer Manag Res 2020, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Fan S et al., Onco Targets Ther 2020, retracted 2022. Notice reason: results See the passage Targeting the NF-κB pathway as a potential regulator of immune checkpoints in cancer immunotherapy Cell Mol Life Sci 2024 · review Smyth MJ et al., J Clin Oncol 2014, retracted 2023. Notice reason: results See the passageSubmitted 2 Jul 2023, before the retraction of 11 Aug 2023; accepted and published (29 Feb 2024) after it. The published reference list marks the work as retracted MiRNA-related metastasis in oral cancer: moving and shaking Cancer Cell Int 2023 · review Wang Q et al., Mol Med Rep 2018, retracted 2022. Notice reason: results See the passage Reply from the author, received 22 Oct 2026Dr Hamblin says he has never knowingly cited a retracted paper and finds it hard to believe that anyone would. The papers in our letter all came from his collaborators in Iran, where internet access is sporadic, unreliable and slow, so researchers build a reference library when they have access and write from it later; a paper retracted after the library was built would not show as retracted, which he says explains our findings. He said none of these citations contains the word "retracted", though our letter said one reference list marked a work retracted.I have never knowingly cited a retracted paper and frankly I find it difficult to believe that anybody would knowingly do thisOur response: He was right about the one item our letter marked: its reference carries a link to the retraction notice, most likely added during publication. For every author, such items now sit apart under their own heading, with a note that publishers often add these links and labels, so they do not show that the authors knew. The other citations stay counted, because the reviews were published after the retractions.Changes since our letter: Every author: an item whose published reference list links the retraction notice or labels the work retracted now sits apart under the heading "The published reference list marks the work as retracted", with a note that publishers often add such links and labels during publication, so they do not show that the authors knew. Wu L et al. (Cell Biol Int) left out under the rule for retractions that do not touch the results (a missing copyright form), so his 2022 review on retinoblastoma is no longer counted. Timelines printed beside two reviews: his 2021 Mol Ther Oncolytics review (no submission date available; online 22 Dec 2021, after the cited works were retracted between July and November 2021) and his 2024 Cell Mol Life Sci review (submitted 2 Jul 2023, before the retraction of 11 Aug 2023). Xie P et al. (Cancer Biomark 2017): our letter gave the retraction year as 2022; the page gives the notice's year, 2023, with its online date (11 Dec 2022). The page now notes that his 2023 Front Oncol review was itself retracted (Sep 2026), after an expression of concern in Jan 2026. His entry: from 10 papers and 35 citations in our letter to 9 papers and 34 citations, all in reviews.
5	Javad Sharifi-RadORCID 0000-0002-7301-8151	8of 8 found by the census	3.1%of 262 tagged papers	8	8
	The 8 papers and 8 citations Pharmacological Activities of Psoralidin: A Comprehensive Review of the Molecular Mechanisms of Action Front Pharmacol 2020 · review Kumar R et al., Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2009, retracted 2011. Notice reason: results See the passage Therapeutic Applications of Curcumin in Diabetes: A Review and Perspective Biomed Res Int 2022 · review Tong F et al., Int J Nanomedicine 2018, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage The Pharmacological Activities of Crocus sativus L.: A Review Based on the Mechanisms and Therapeutic Opportunities of its Phytoconstituents Oxid Med Cell Longev 2022 · review Samarghandian S et al., Biomed Res Int 2013, retracted 2020. Notice reason: results See the passage Apoptosis evasion via long non-coding RNAs in colorectal cancer Cancer Cell Int 2022 · review Zheng Y et al., J Cell Biochem 2018, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Ursolic acid: a natural modulator of signaling networks in different cancers Cancer Cell Int 2022 · review Liu P et al., Med Sci Monit 2019, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage LncRNA SNHG6 role in clinicopathological parameters in cancers Eur J Med Res 2023 · review Wei J et al., Bioorg Chem 2021, retracted 2022. Notice reason: results See the passage Paclitaxel and its semi-synthetic derivatives: comprehensive insights into chemical structure, mechanisms of action, and anticancer properties Eur J Med Res 2024 · review Zuo Y et al., Comput Math Methods Med 2022, retracted 2023. Notice reason: results See the passage The published reference list marks the work as retracted Artemisia spp.: An Update on Its Chemical Composition, Pharmacological and Toxicological Profiles Oxid Med Cell Longev 2022 · review Munyangi J et al., Phytomedicine 2018, retracted 2020. Notice reason: results See the passage
6	Abdelhakim BouyahyaORCID 0000-0001-9317-1631	7of 8 found by the census	4.9%of 142 tagged papers	7	9
	The 7 papers and 10 citations Natural Bioactive Compounds Targeting Epigenetic Pathways in Cancer: A Review on Alkaloids, Terpenoids, Quinones, and Isothiocyanates Nutrients 2021 · review Chen X et al., Pharmacol Rep 2016, retracted 2020. Notice reason: results See the passage The Pharmacological Activities of Crocus sativus L.: A Review Based on the Mechanisms and Therapeutic Opportunities of its Phytoconstituents Oxid Med Cell Longev 2022 · review Samarghandian S et al., Biomed Res Int 2013, retracted 2020. Notice reason: results See the passage The Role of Epigenetic Modifications in Human Cancers and the Use of Natural Compounds as Epidrugs: Mechanistic Pathways and Pharmacodynamic Actions Biomolecules 2022 · review Zhang T et al., Cell Death Dis 2016, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Wang K et al., Cancer Manag Res 2020, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Natural Bioactive Compounds Targeting Histone Deacetylases in Human Cancers: Recent Updates Molecules 2022 · review Zhang T et al., Cell Death Dis 2016, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Targeting mTOR as a Cancer Therapy: Recent Advances in Natural Bioactive Compounds and Immunotherapy Cancers (Basel) 2022 · review Li C et al., Med Sci Monit 2019, retracted 2021. Reason unclear (retracted at the author's request, no reason given) See the passage Clinical applications and mechanism insights of natural flavonoids against type 2 diabetes mellitus Heliyon 2024 · review Alkhalidy H et al., J Diabetes Res 2015, retracted 2020. Notice reason: results See the passage The published reference list marks the work as retracted Natural Bioactive Compounds Targeting Epigenetic Pathways in Cancer: A Review on Alkaloids, Terpenoids, Quinones, and Isothiocyanates Nutrients 2021 · review Wang Q et al., Biomed Pharmacother 2016, retracted 2020. Notice reason: results See the passage Dou X et al., Anat Rec (Hoboken) 2019, retracted 2020. Notice reason: results See the passage Targeting inflammation in cancer therapy: from mechanistic insights to emerging therapeutic approaches J Transl Med 2025 · review Yin Z et al., J Cell Biochem 2018, retracted 2022. Notice reason: results See the passage
7	Anupam BishayeeORCID 0000-0001-9159-960X	6of 8 found by the census	6.9%of 87 tagged papers	4	6
	The 6 papers and 6 citations Autophagy: A Potential Therapeutic Target of Polyphenols in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Cancers (Basel) 2020 · review Mariño G et al., J Biol Chem 2007, retracted 2019. Notice reason: results See the passage Sulforaphane: A Broccoli Bioactive Phytocompound with Cancer Preventive Potential Cancers (Basel) 2021 · review Yeh CT et al., Carcinogenesis 2005, retracted 2013. Notice reason: results See the passage Anticancer Potential of Apigenin and Isovitexin with Focus on Oncogenic Metabolism in Cancer Stem Cells Metabolites 2023 · review Cao X et al., J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2019, retracted 2022. Notice reason: results See the passage Naringin-Dextrin Nanocomposite Abates Diethylnitrosamine/Acetylaminofluorene-Induced Lung Carcinogenesis by Modulating Oxidative Stress, Inflammation, Apoptosis, and Cell Proliferation Cancers (Basel) 2023 Wu Y et al., ACS Omega 2020, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Bioactive black tea phytochemicals partially influenced doxorubicin sensitivity by modulation of NRF2-regulatory pathways in lung cancer J Ayurveda Integr Med 2026 Mohana S et al., BMC Cancer 2018, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage The published reference list marks the work as retracted Phytochemicals for the Prevention and Treatment of Renal Cell Carcinoma: Preclinical and Clinical Evidence and Molecular Mechanisms Cancers (Basel) 2022 · review Gao H et al., Acta Pharmacol Sin 2017, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage
7	Meysam MoghbeliORCID 0000-0001-9680-0309	6of 7 found by the census	18.2%of 33 tagged papers	6	10
	The 6 papers and 10 citations MicroRNAs as the critical regulators of cisplatin resistance in gastric tumor cells Genes Environ 2021 · review Cao HY et al., Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2019, retracted 2020. Notice reason: results See the passageFirst submitted in Mar 2019, the author says, before the retraction (November 2020); received by this journal 20 Feb 2021, accepted (24 May 2021) and published (7 Jun 2021) after it. Long non-coding RNAs as the critical regulators of epithelial mesenchymal transition in colorectal tumor cells: an overview Cancer Cell Int 2022 · review Wang Z et al., Cancer Res 2006, retracted 2018. Notice reason: results See the passageFirst submitted in Jul 2018, the author says, before the retraction (September 2018); received by this journal 13 Nov 2021, accepted (30 Jan 2022) and published (10 Feb 2022) after it. Single-nucleotide polymorphisms as important risk factors of diabetes among Middle East population Hum Genomics 2022 · review Golsheh S et al., Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes 2019, retracted 2019. Notice reason: results See the passageFirst submitted in May 2019, the author says, before the retraction (July 2019); received by this journal 22 Dec 2021, accepted (23 Mar 2022) and published (2 Apr 2022) after it. MicroRNAs as the critical regulators of cell migration and invasion in thyroid cancer Biomark Res 2022 · reviewFirst submitted in Mar 2021, the author says, before the five retractions (June to October 2021); received by this journal 4 Jan 2022, accepted (7 May 2022) and published (4 Jun 2022) after them. Wen Q et al., Oncol Rep 2015, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Dong S et al., Oncol Rep 2016, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Li D et al., Oncol Rep 2017, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Song Z et al., Onco Targets Ther 2019, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Wang J et al., Onco Targets Ther 2019, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Cell cycle related long non-coding RNAs as the critical regulators of breast cancer progression and metastasis Biol Res 2023 · review Hu CC et al., Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2019, retracted 2022. Notice reason: results See the passageSubmitted 17 Nov 2021, before the retraction (September 2022); accepted (29 Dec 2022) and published (3 Jan 2023) after it. MicroRNAs as the critical regulators of epithelial mesenchymal transition in pancreatic tumor cells Heliyon 2024 · review Peng L et al., Oncol Rep 2017, retracted 2023. Notice reason: results See the passageFirst submitted in Jan 2023, the author says, before the retraction (February 2023); received by this journal 26 Feb 2024, accepted (30 Apr 2024) and published (1 May 2024) after it. Reply from the author, received 22 Oct 2026In two replies, Dr Moghbeli confirms that the citations are correct. He says each review was finished and first submitted before the cited papers were retracted. In his second reply he adds that the six reviews were submitted, rejected and passed from journal to journal over long periods, often through Springer's transfer to the next journal it suggested, and that the retractions came during those transfers. Once a manuscript is under review, authors cannot change it unless the journal sends it back, and journals did not then check references for retractions as they do now; so he says authors cannot find such references unless the journal checks them and asks for a correction, and that such citations are inevitable in reviews with hundreds of references that pass through several journals. He says the retracted references, 11 of the 1,546 in the seven reviews, have no significant negative effect on the reviews' topics or conclusions. He also said the first item, Roberts JT et al. (Ann Oncol 2006), is not retracted and has no retraction notice.When we wrote, prepared, and submitted these review manuscripts, the cited papers were not yet retracted.Our response: The record he checked is the original 2005 trial in J Clin Oncol, which is not retracted; the Ann Oncol 2006 paper was retracted in 2011 as a redundant publication of it, and had already been left out under the rule for duplicates. His timelines match the journal records and the notices and are printed beside each review; those citations stay counted, because the reviews were published after the retractions. His second reply explains how the manuscripts moved between journals; it changes no entry.Changes since our letter: Roberts JT et al. (Ann Oncol 2006) is left out (retracted in 2011 as a redundant publication of results that stay published in J Clin Oncol), so his 2020 Cell Commun Signal review is not counted. Timelines printed beside the six remaining reviews: first-submission dates from his account, the rest from the journal records and the retraction notices. His entry: from 7 papers and 11 citations in our letter to 6 papers and 10 citations, all in reviews.
7	Amirhossein SahebkarORCID 0000-0002-8656-1444	6of 6 found by the census	4.2%of 144 tagged papers	6	9
	The 6 papers and 9 citations Effect of COVID-19 on Mortality of Pregnant and Postpartum Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis J Pregnancy 2021 · review Karami P et al., Travel Med Infect Dis 2020, retracted 2020. Reason unclear (withdrawn at the authors' request, no reason given) See the passage Harnessing the Therapeutic Potential of Decoys in Non-Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Diseases: State of the Art J Cardiovasc Dev Dis 2021 · review Mehra MR et al., N Engl J Med 2020, retracted 2020. Notice reason: results See the passage The Multifaceted Therapeutic Mechanisms of Curcumin in Osteosarcoma: State-of-the-Art J Oncol 2021 · review Zhang P et al., Clin Cancer Res 2008, retracted 2013. Notice reason: results See the passage MicroRNAs as Biomarkers for Early Diagnosis, Prognosis, and Therapeutic Targeting of Ovarian Cancer J Oncol 2021 · review Jia XN et al., Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2019, retracted 2020. Reason unclear (withdrawn by the authors, no reason given) See the passage Epi-miRNAs: Regulators of the Histone Modification Machinery in Human Cancer J Oncol 2022 · review Zou Q et al., Exp Ther Med 2017, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Sun CM et al., Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2019, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Impact of Phytochemicals on PPAR Receptors: Implications for Disease Treatments PPAR Res 2022 · review Huo X et al., Molecules 2018, retracted 2019. Notice reason: results See the passage The published reference list marks the work as retracted Epi-miRNAs: Regulators of the Histone Modification Machinery in Human Cancer J Oncol 2022 · review Wang Y et al., Target Oncol 2016, retracted 2016. Notice reason: results See the passage Cai M et al., J Cell Mol Med 2018, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Reply from the author, received 21 Oct 2026Dr Sahebkar says a retraction is not a single verdict on a paper: notices range from fabricated data to duplicate publication, authorship disputes or a problem in one figure unrelated to the result being cited, and COPE guidance recommends citing retracted work with its status clearly marked. Whether a citation is a problem depends on whether the reason for retraction touches the statement it supports and whether the citing paper's conclusion rests on it, which a count of citations cannot answer. All seven papers in our letter are reviews of hundreds of sources, and he says none of their conclusions depends on the retracted papers. He asks that authors be compared by rates normalised by their total publications and cited references, not ranked by absolute counts, since a ranking by count is led by the authors who publish most. He was given the opportunity to send a direct response for publication instead of this summary.Our response: Two of his points changed the lists for every author: the author list now shows a rate beside each count (for him, 6 of 144 papers, 4.2%), and citations of work retracted for reasons that do not touch its results are left out. The ranking stays by count, as set out in advance, and the rate counts papers, not references.Changes since our letter: Every author: a rate is shown beside the count (papers citing retracted work as support, out of the author's open-access papers in PMC tagged with their ORCID iD, 2010 to 2026). Every list: citations of work retracted only for reasons that do not touch the results are left out. Two of his items came off: Zhang P et al. (J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2017; the notice concerns the welfare of the mice and ethics approval) and Wu L et al. (Cell Biol Int; a signed copyright transfer agreement was not provided). His entry: from 7 papers and 11 citations in our letter to 6 papers and 9 citations, all in reviews.
7	Noushin NabaviORCID 0000-0002-5471-6229	6of 7 found by the census	16.7%of 36 tagged papers	6	10
	The 6 papers and 10 citations The long and short non-coding RNAs modulating EZH2 signaling in cancer J Hematol Oncol 2022 · review Zhu F et al., J Cell Biochem 2018, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Pan MZ et al., Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2019, retracted 2021. Reason unclear ("serious inaccuracies and mistakes", not specified) See the passage Zheng W et al., Cancer Manag Res 2020, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage Deciphering STAT3 signaling potential in hepatocellular carcinoma: tumorigenesis, treatment resistance, and pharmacological significance Cell Mol Biol Lett 2023 · review Chen Y et al., Mol Ther Nucleic Acids 2019, retracted 2022. Notice reason: results See the passage Biological landscape and nanostructural view in development and reversal of oxaliplatin resistance in colorectal cancer Transl Oncol 2023 · review Jiang Z et al., Bioengineered 2022, retracted 2023. Notice reason: results See the passageSubmitted 21 Sep 2023, before the retraction of 18 Oct 2023; revised, accepted and published (1 Dec 2023) after it. NF-ĸB axis in diabetic neuropathy, cardiomyopathy and nephropathy: A roadmap from molecular intervention to therapeutic strategies Heliyon 2024 · reviewThis paper has itself been retracted (Dec 2025). Its authors dispute the retraction. Luo J et al., Contrast Media Mol Imaging 2022, retracted 2023. Notice reason: results See the passage Emerging roles of non-coding RNAs in modulating the PI3K/Akt pathway in cancer Noncoding RNA Res 2024 · review Xie P et al., Cancer Biomark 2017, retracted 2023 (notice online 11 Dec 2022). Notice reason: results See the passage Song XZ et al., Technol Cancer Res Treat 2020, retracted 2023. Notice reason: results See the passage Ma HY et al., Mol Ther Nucleic Acids 2020, retracted 2023. Notice reason: results See the passage Highlighting function of Wnt signalling in urological cancers: Molecular interactions, therapeutic strategies, and (nano)strategies Transl Oncol 2024 · review Hu Y et al., Oncotarget 2017, retracted 2022. Notice reason: results See the passage Reply from the author, received 21 Oct 2026Dr Nabavi checked the references and passages and accepts that the cited studies have retraction notices and are cited in support of statements in her reviews, but says this does not by itself show prior awareness, misconduct, or that the reviews' overall conclusions are invalid. She notes that her oxaliplatin review was submitted on 21 September 2023, before the cited circPTK2 study was retracted on 18 October 2023, though it was revised and published afterwards. She would need to review the manuscript history before giving an account of awareness, and is willing to work with her co-authors and the journals to assess the affected statements and pursue appropriate corrections. She asked that her entry be deferred until she has seen and answered the human check's findings, and that her response be published alongside her entry; it is printed below as she wrote it.Citation counts alone cannot establish that an entire review is unreliable.Statement from the author, printed as written: Thank you for contacting me before publication and providing an opportunity to respond. I take the accuracy of the scientific record seriously. I have checked the identified references and their surrounding passages. I acknowledge that the listed studies have retraction notices and are cited in support of scientific statements in the reviews. However, this does not, by itself, establish prior awareness of the retractions, individual misconduct, or that the reviews’ overall conclusions are invalid. The publication timeline requires context. The oxaliplatin review was submitted on 21 September 2023, before the cited circPTK2 study was retracted on 18 October 2023, although the review was revised and published afterward. Please reflect this distinction in your account. It is also important to distinguish the status of a review from that of a study it cites. For example, the May 2022 correction to “The long and short non-coding RNAs modulating EZH2 signaling in cancer” concerned a co-author’s name; it was not a retraction of that review. I recognise that this correction does not resolve the separate issue of its cited sources. Regarding prior awareness, I would need to review the manuscript history and relevant correspondence before providing an accurate account for each citation. Assessing the effect on the reviews’ conclusions likewise requires examining the particular claims and the remaining evidence. Citation counts alone cannot establish that an entire review is unreliable. I remain willing to work with the co-authors and journals to assess the affected statements and pursue appropriate corrections. I also have concerns about the opportunity afforded to authors to respond to editorial decisions. In some instances involving our own papers, my understanding is that we were notified only after retraction and were not given a meaningful opportunity to respond beforehand. This is a separate concern from the status of the studies cited in those papers. Regarding the separate Elsevier retraction matter, I continue to disagree strongly with the decision and dispute the grounds provided. In our correspondence with Elsevier, we explained our position that the identified reference mismatches and Table 3 error could be addressed through a formal correction without invalidating the review’s overall conclusions. We supplied proposed corrections and requested a specific explanation of why a correction was considered insufficient. In our view, those concerns were not adequately addressed. Please distinguish this disputed editorial matter from your citation analysis. If you discuss it, please accurately record that the authors disagree with the retraction and dispute its grounds. I appreciate your clarification that your analysis concerns citation use rather than intent. Please preserve that distinction in the published presentation. As your figures remain provisional and human verification is pending, please provide the completed human-review findings when available. I request that publication of my individual entry be deferred until I have had a reasonable opportunity to review and respond to those findings. I would welcome publication of this response alongside any summary concerning me, so that readers can consider my position in context. Our response: Her dates are exact, and the timeline is printed beside that citation; it stays counted, because every entry is measured by the paper as published. We did not defer her entry, since the list is published whole. If she shows that a reading is wrong, we correct the entry and say so here.Changes since our letter: Timeline printed beside her Translational Oncology review's citation of Jiang Z et al. (Bioengineered 2022): submitted 21 Sep 2023, before the retraction of 18 Oct 2023; revised, accepted and published (1 Dec 2023) after it. Xie P et al. (Cancer Biomark 2017): our letter gave the retraction year as 2022; the page gives the notice's year, 2023, with its online date (11 Dec 2022). The page now notes that her 2024 Heliyon review was itself retracted (Dec 2025) and that its authors dispute the retraction.
7	Gautam SethiORCID 0000-0002-8677-8475	6of 7 found by the census	3.1%of 195 tagged papers	5	7
	The 6 papers and 7 citations Artesunate suppresses tumor growth and induces apoptosis through the modulation of multiple oncogenic cascades in a chronic myeloid leukemia xenograft mouse model Oncotarget 2015 Tomita M et al., Retrovirology 2006, retracted 2011. Notice reason: results See the passage Potential of Zerumbone as an Anti-Cancer Agent Molecules 2019 · review Sung B et al., Cancer Res 2009, retracted 2018. Notice reason: results See the passage Cytoskeletal Proteins in Cancer and Intracellular Stress: A Therapeutic Perspective Cancers (Basel) 2020 · review Lahat G et al., PLoS One 2010, retracted 2019. Notice reason: results See the passage Circular RNAs in cell cycle regulation: Mechanisms to clinical significance Cell Prolif 2021 · review Chen L et al., Oncogene 2017, retracted 2019. Notice reason: results See the passage Emerging role of exosomes in cancer progression and tumor microenvironment remodeling J Hematol Oncol 2022 · review Li J et al., Cell Physiol Biochem 2016, retracted 2016. Notice reason: results See the passage Wu J et al., Hepatology 2021, retracted 2021. Notice reason: results See the passage The role of the tumor microenvironment in endocrine therapy resistance in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2023 · review Sun X et al., Oncogene 2014, retracted 2014. Notice reason: results See the passage
7	Chih-Yang HuangORCID 0000-0003-2347-0411	6of 6 found by the census	2.9%of 204 tagged papers	1	6
	The 6 papers and 6 citations Heat-killed Lactobacillus Reuteri GMNL-263 Prevents Epididymal Fat Accumulation and Cardiac Injury in High-Calorie Diet-Fed Rats Int J Med Sci 2016 Lin CH et al., Br J Nutr 2013, retracted 2013. Notice reason: results See the passage FOXC1 Regulation of miR-31-5p Confers Oxaliplatin Resistance by Targeting LATS2 in Colorectal Cancer Cancers (Basel) 2019 Valastyan S et al., Cell 2009, retracted 2015. Notice reason: results See the passage Swimming exercise stimulates IGF1/ PI3K/Akt and AMPK/SIRT1/PGC1α survival signaling to suppress apoptosis and inflammation in aging hippocampus Aging (Albany NY) 2020 Marfe G et al., BMC Physiol 2010, retracted 2014. Notice reason: results See the passage E3 ligase activity of Carboxyl terminus of Hsc70 interacting protein (CHIP) in Wharton's jelly derived mesenchymal stem cells improves their persistence under hyperglycemic stress and promotes the prophylactic effects against diabetic cardiac damages Bioeng Transl Med 2021 Song P et al., Circulation 2007, retracted 2020. Notice reason: results See the passage A prospective review of the health-promoting potential of Jing Si Herbal Tea Tzu Chi Med J 2024 · review Zhu Z et al., J Healthc Eng 2021, retracted 2023. Notice reason: results See the passageSubmitted 9 Aug 2023 and accepted 2 Oct 2023, both before the retraction of 6 Dec 2023; published (12 Jan 2024) after it. miR-6126 modulates GRP78 to suppress the Warburg effect and mitochondrial dynamics in triple-negative breast cancer Int J Med Sci 2025 Nassirpour R et al., PLoS One 2013, retracted 2017. Notice reason: results See the passage
7	Peng LuoORCID 0000-0002-8215-2045	6of 6 found by the census	2.3%of 259 tagged papers	3	6
	The 6 papers and 6 citations Comparison of the benefits of celecoxib combined with anticancer therapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis J Cancer 2020 Gadgeel SM et al., Cancer 2007, retracted 2016. Notice reason: results See the passage Machine learning and experimental validation of novel biomarkers for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and cancers J Cell Mol Med 2024 Zhao W et al., Comput Math Methods Med 2022, retracted 2023. Notice reason: results See the passage Multi-stage mechanisms of tumor metastasis and therapeutic strategies Signal Transduct Target Ther 2024 · review Fu X et al., J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2018, retracted 2023. Notice reason: results See the passage Harnessing the tumor microenvironment: targeted cancer therapies through modulation of epithelial-mesenchymal transition J Hematol Oncol 2025 · review Hu Y et al., Cell Death Dis 2018, retracted 2023. Notice reason: results See the passage Tumor-associated endothelial cells in tumor immune escape and immunotherapy: multifaceted roles and treatment approaches Biomark Res 2025 · review Martinez JC et al., Histopathology 2009, retracted 2009. Notice reason: results See the passage The published reference list marks the work as retracted A multi-gene predictive model for the radiation sensitivity of nasopharyngeal carcinoma based on machine learning Elife 2025 Liu J et al., Tumour Biol 2014, retracted 2015. Notice reason: results See the passage

Papers: citing papers with at least one citation the second reading confirmed as support. Rate: those papers as a share of the author's open-access papers in PMC that carry their ORCID iD in Europe PMC, 2010 to 2026 (counted 2026-10-21). The ranking stays by count. Below the top three, the order does not hold under rates: authors with few tagged papers can have high rates on small numbers. Reviews: how many of those papers Europe PMC lists as review articles. Every support citation in every listed author's papers was read again (217 in all). The 3 authors who share papers wrote most of them together, so their counts overlap. Ties share a place.

Each listed item names the notice's reason. Results: the notice names a problem with the data, images or results, or says they cannot be relied on. Unclear: it gives no reason or a vague one, or we have not read it yet; these still count. Citations of work retracted only for reasons that do not touch the results are left out, as the census leaves out paperwork retractions. Where a citing paper was submitted or accepted before the retraction, its timeline is printed beside the item; papers that went online before the retraction are left out. 22 of the 200 items sit apart: the citing paper's published reference list marks the work as retracted. Such labels and links are often added automatically during publication, so they do not show that the authors knew.

How we checked

Counted by the census, then read again.

AI readings.Each label is our reading of a published passage by the method on this page, and each paper and author item links to its passages so you can judge it yourself. The counts come from the Phase 2 census: three AI models read every citing passage. Each list was then checked again, as set out in the box at the top; those are AI readings too. Everyone named was sent the evidence and asked to tell us if a reading is wrong; where one is, we correct the entry and say so beside it.
Dates and reasons from the notice.Each retraction date and reason on the lists comes from the journal's retraction notice, not from a database. Where we have not yet read a notice, we say so instead of giving a reason. Corrections made after the data was built are listed, with their sources, in list_corrections.json.
What each paper reached.For every paper the census found citing a listed paper as support after its retraction, we read its Europe PMC record on 29 October 2026: its publication type (review, systematic review, trial) and the grants it acknowledges. "In turn" counts the distinct later papers that cite any of those papers, for any reason, with the systematic reviews, trials and guidelines among them as Europe PMC types them; it measures reach, not harm. Registered trials are ClinicalTrials.gov records first submitted after the retraction that list the retracted paper among their references. Totals are in reach.json.
Only citations made after the retraction.A citation counts if the citing paper came out in a year after the retraction. Where we checked dates one by one, papers that went online before the notice are left out, and papers submitted or accepted before it carry their timeline. The rest of the census goes by calendar year, so the full tables may still hold a few citations made before a retraction.
Only retractions about the results.Citations of a paper are left out when its retraction notice gives only reasons that do not touch the results, such as reused text, a duplicate of a result that stays published, authorship, ethics paperwork, copyright or a software licence, or a wrong journal; the census already leaves out paperwork retractions the same way. We apply this where we have read the notice. A notice that gives no reason, or an unclear one, still counts and is marked "reason unclear". They are not hidden: 289 later citations use 20 such papers as support, from 289 citing papers. The papers · every citation, labelled with the reason.
Only confirmed retractions.The lists use only papers PubMed links to a retraction notice: 45,763 judged citations to 11,698 retracted papers. Papers replaced by a corrected version, and paperwork retractions that find no fault in the science, are left out.
Authors by ORCID only.Authors are matched by their ORCID iD, so two people with the same name are never merged. Authors without an ORCID iD in Europe PMC cannot be listed, so this is not every author.
What the second reading found.Of 601 different citations the census called support and we read again, 512 (85.2%) held up after every reading. 59 only mentioned the paper in passing, 7 flagged it as retracted or unreliable, and 23 were about something else, most often because the reference pointed at the wrong paper. These citations come from the top of each list, so they are not a rate for the whole census. Some papers were cited only for a tool or method that still works; those are left off, with the reason shown.
Open-access papers only.The census reads papers whose full text is open in Europe PMC. Journals that publish everything open access are counted in full, others only in part, so the counts favour large open-access journals.
Check it yourself.Each list as a CSV: papers · journals by count · journals by share · authors. every author item, with the notice's reason class and any timeline. Every citation read again, with its verdict and a note. Every reply from the people named, as summarised. What each column means.
The full tables.All 11,697 retracted papers and all 3,822 citing journals. They are ranked by count with the corrections in list_corrections.json applied: 57 papers' counts differ from the census labels alone, and the file gives both. Only the listed entries and the papers near the last place were read again. One held paper is left out until it is named. All papers · all journals · PubMed retraction status of every paper. Their reason column is grouped from Retraction Watch codes, not the notice's wording.
Corrections.If you are named and think an entry is wrong, write to SaneCite at letters@sanecite.com, with the citing paper's PMC number if you have it. We reply within two working days and decide within seven days. A correction is made beside the entry, dated, and logged in list_corrections.json. You can also ask us to take an entry down: it comes off when the evidence shows a reading is wrong or a citation is out of scope, the same rule for everyone, and if it stays we tell you why.

Named people and your data

What we hold about the people named, and why.

Who is responsible.SaneCite, an independent research project in Georgia, USA. To reach us, write to SaneCite at letters@sanecite.com.
What we use.Names, ORCID iDs and publication records: titles, journals, dates, reference lists and the passages that cite retracted work. And the replies people send us.
Where it comes from.Public records: Europe PMC (with the ORCID iDs it holds), PubMed, the Retraction Watch database and the journals' own retraction notices.
Why, and on what basis.Research in the public interest on how the published record handles retracted work, and publishing its results. Where UK or European data protection law applies, we rely on legitimate interests in research and free expression, and on the exemptions those laws give to academic and journalistic work. Entries come from whole-set counts, never picked by hand.
How entries are made.By AI readings of the citing passages, by the method on this page, with a right of reply for the people named before publication.
What we print from a reply.A summary in our words, one short quote, and any statement written for publication, the same for everyone. We never print email addresses, phone numbers or details about other people. The full reply is kept privately and shared only when needed, with a journal, a fiscal sponsor or a lawyer.
How long.Published entries stay as part of the research record, with every correction dated. Private correspondence is kept while the entry is published and for two years after.
Your rights.You can ask us to correct your entry, to tell you what we hold about you, to restrict or stop a use, or to delete what we hold: write to SaneCite at letters@sanecite.com. We reply within two working days and decide within one month. Where we keep a published entry because the research record needs it, we tell you why. You can also complain to your data protection authority (in the UK, the Information Commissioner's Office).