As of December 18, 2024, a new compilation highlights the top 10 most cited retracted scientific papers, shedding light on some of the most controversial, influential, and widely discussed works in recent scientific history. These studies, originally published in high-impact journals such as Nature, The Lancet, and Science, were retracted due to various issues ranging from data manipulation to flawed methodology. Despite their retraction, many of these papers continue to attract significant attention in the form of citations — a phenomenon that underscores the challenges surrounding scientific integrity and the lasting influence of discredited research.
Below is an overview of the ten most cited retracted papers, their citation history, and the reasons behind their retraction:
- Pluripotency of Mesenchymal Stem Cells Derived from Adult Bone Marrow
- Published in: Nature
Year of Retraction: 2024 - Citing Articles Before Retraction: 4491
- Citing Articles After Retraction: 10
- Total Citations: 4501
This paper, which was initially hailed as groundbreaking in stem cell research, claimed that adult bone marrow cells could be reprogrammed into pluripotent stem cells. Retraction in 2024 followed extensive scrutiny and concerns over experimental integrity and misrepresented findings.
- Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin as Treatment for COVID-19: Results of an Open-Label Non-Randomized Clinical Trial
- Published in: International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents
Year of Retraction: 2024 - Citing Articles Before Retraction: 3162
- Citing Articles After Retraction: 0
- Total Citations: 3162
This highly contentious paper, published during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, initially suggested that hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin could be effective treatments for the virus. The study’s methodology, however, was later criticized, leading to its retraction.
- 6-Month Consequences of COVID-19 in Patients Discharged from Hospital: A Cohort Study
- Published in: The Lancet
Year of Retraction: 2023 - Citing Articles Before Retraction: 2262
- Citing Articles After Retraction: 634
- Total Citations: 2896
This landmark study on the long-term effects of COVID-19 was retracted after concerns about data integrity and patient consent. Despite its retraction, the paper has continued to receive significant attention, reflecting the lasting impact of its initial publication.
- Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease with a Mediterranean Diet
- Published in: New England Journal of Medicine
Year of Retraction: 2018 - Citing Articles Before Retraction: 1734
- Citing Articles After Retraction: 902
- Total Citations: 2636
This influential paper from the PREDIMED study, which originally supported the cardiovascular benefits of a Mediterranean diet, was retracted after issues arose regarding statistical analysis and possible data irregularities.
- A Specific Amyloid-β Protein Assembly in the Brain Impairs Memory
- Published in: Nature
Year of Retraction: 2024 - Citing Articles Before Retraction: 2359
- Citing Articles After Retraction: 13
- Total Citations: 2372
This study, which suggested a particular amyloid-β protein assembly as a key factor in Alzheimer’s disease, was retracted following questions about the reproducibility and validity of its results.
- Predictive Validity of a Medication Adherence Measure in an Outpatient Setting
- Published in: The Journal of Clinical Hypertension
Year of Retraction: 2023 - Citing Articles Before Retraction: 1930
- Citing Articles After Retraction: 161
- Total Citations: 2091
This study, which developed a medication adherence tool for hypertension patients, was retracted due to concerns about manipulated data. Despite the retraction, it continues to be cited within the field of healthcare research.
- MicroRNA Signatures of Tumor-Derived Exosomes as Diagnostic Biomarkers of Ovarian Cancer
- Published in: Gynecologic Oncology
Year of Retraction: 2023 - Citing Articles Before Retraction: 1868
- Citing Articles After Retraction: 66
- Total Citations: 1934
This paper on the diagnostic potential of tumor-derived exosomes in ovarian cancer was retracted following the discovery of fabricated data. Nevertheless, its citations persist, especially within the cancer biomarker research community.
- Ileal-Lymphoid-Nodular Hyperplasia, Non-Specific Colitis, and Pervasive Developmental Disorder in Children
- Published in: The Lancet
Year of Retraction: 2010 - Citing Articles Before Retraction: 643
- Citing Articles After Retraction: 1074
- Total Citations: 1717
Andrew Wakefield’s infamous 1998 study that falsely linked the MMR vaccine to autism was retracted in 2010 after multiple issues with data manipulation were uncovered. Despite being thoroughly discredited, the paper continues to receive citations, reflecting the persistent influence of anti-vaccine rhetoric.
- Recent Progress in Processing and Properties of ZnO
- Published in: Progress in Materials Science
Year of Retraction: 2020 - Citing Articles Before Retraction: 1550
- Citing Articles After Retraction: 79
- Total Citations: 1629
This materials science paper, which focused on the properties of zinc oxide (ZnO), was retracted after several instances of data misrepresentation. Despite this, it remains frequently cited within the materials science community.
- Visfatin: A Protein Secreted by Visceral Fat that Mimics the Effects of Insulin
- Published in: Science
Year of Retraction: 2007 - Citing Articles Before Retraction: 232
- Citing Articles After Retraction: 1319
- Total Citations: 1551
This 2005 paper, which identified visfatin as a protein mimicking insulin, was retracted due to concerns about the experimental methods used. Nonetheless, it continues to be widely cited in the fields of endocrinology and obesity research.
The Persistent Influence of Retractions
The continued citation of these retracted papers highlights an ongoing challenge in the scientific community: the enduring impact of flawed or discredited research. Despite being retracted, these studies continue to shape subsequent research, often because of their initial prominence and the widespread attention they garnered. This phenomenon raises important questions about the integrity of the scientific record and the need for more robust systems to prevent the citation and use of retracted studies.
In many instances, the retraction of a high-profile paper does little to diminish its influence, as the scientific community continues to grapple with the long-lasting effects of these once-celebrated studies. As such, the scientific world must remain vigilant, ensuring that the process of retraction is transparent and that the lasting consequences of discredited research are carefully considered.