Cited after retraction
We checked the reference lists of 38,350 recent (2024–2025) biomedical papers — every citation against the Retraction Watch database — and asked a sharper question than “how often does a retracted reference appear.” Two questions, both about whether something was actually catchable: was the cited paper already retracted when the citing paper was published, and which papers lean on many retracted articles at once?
What this means (and what it doesn’t)
A retraction that lands after a paper was published can’t be a screening failure — there was nothing to catch. So the number that matters is the 69% where the cited paper had already been retracted, often years earlier. Those are the citations a reference check at submission would have flagged. We measured the citation’s presence, not whether each one endorses or merely notes the retracted work; that requires reading each paper. Every pair below is independently verifiable from the two DOIs.
This is a statement of fact about citations, not an accusation about authors. Some fields — microRNA and oncology especially — have a high retraction base rate, so a review there will cite many now-retracted papers simply because the underlying literature is heavily contaminated. Retractions + expressions of concern only; corrections excluded. The figure is a conservative lower bound.
It tracks how contaminated a field’s literature is
The rate spans roughly a hundredfold by venue — not because some authors are careless and others careful, but because some fields’ literatures carry far more retracted work. Tier of journal matters: the paper-mill-exposed microRNA/oncology corner runs 4.0% on average, the prestige clinical journals 1.6%.
| Journal | Sampled | With a flagged ref | Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| International Journal of Oncology | 170 | 38 | 22.4% |
| Oncology Reports | 223 | 30 | 13.5% |
| Molecular Medicine Reports | 489 | 47 | 9.6% |
| Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy | 2,417 | 227 | 9.4% |
| Aging | 870 | 58 | 6.7% |
| Cancer Cell | 317 | 17 | 5.4% |
| Cancer Research | 500 | 25 | 5.0% |
| Frontiers in Immunology | 2,467 | 109 | 4.4% |
| The Lancet | 494 | 4 | 0.8% |
| Science | 490 | 3 | 0.6% |
| JAMA | 491 | 3 | 0.6% |
| Nature Genetics | 496 | 2 | 0.4% |
| New England Journal of Medicine | 500 | 1 | 0.2% |
Representative rows from the panel (journals with ≥150 papers sampled). Full table available on request.
Concentration: papers with many retracted references
42 papers cite three or more retracted/EoC references; 5 cite five or more. The worst single case is a 2025 microRNA review in Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications that cites 8 retracted articles — all 8 already retracted before it was published. Almost all of these heavy citers are review articles in microRNA and oncology journals, where the underlying literature is heavily retracted. And the heavy citers are not independent: 23 clusters lean on the same retracted papers (the tightest, 4 papers sharing 15 retracted references) — the citation-contamination pattern worth inspecting. The full named list of the 42 heavy citers is available to researchers and journalists on request.
In top journals too
The prestige journals sit near the floor, but not at zero. Each row is a recent paper in a major journal whose reference list includes a paper retracted years earlier. Stated as fact, with both DOIs so you can check; we did not assess whether each citation relies on or flags the retracted work.
The papers that won’t die
A handful of retracted papers account for a disproportionate share of the citations. These retracted papers were each cited by many recent papers in our panel. (The last is a “lost citation” rather than a catchable one — it was retracted after the citing papers appeared.)
Method
- Sample: 38,350 recent (2024–2025) journal-articles via the Crossref
/worksAPI by ISSN, with at least 10 resolvable reference DOIs. A two-tier panel: prestige journals (the accountability question) plus higher-volume biomedical venues where concentration is more likely to appear. - Check: every reference DOI matched against the live Retraction Watch dataset (retraction notices carry dates). Retractions + expressions of concern only — corrections excluded. Retraction dates are joined to each citing paper’s publication date to classify whether the reference was already retracted (catchable).
- Discipline: citing papers that are themselves retraction/EoC/correction notices are excluded (they are not heavy citers). We report citation presence, not intent. “Cites N already-retracted papers” is a fact; we never infer misconduct.
- Lower bound: Retraction-Watch-based, so Crossref-only retractions not yet in the dataset are not counted; hijacked-journal and DOAJ-withdrawn checks (which the production engine also applies) are not included here.
Summary data and the full named heavy-citer list are available to researchers and journalists on request (erik@manusights.com). Please credit the Retraction Watch Database (ISSN 2692-4579) and Crossref. Companion prevalence study: how often papers cite retracted research.
Check your own bibliography
Paste your reference list into the free Manusights reference-integrity checker — no login, no email gate — and it flags retracted, expression-of-concern, corrected, and hijacked-journal references in one pass.
Preparing a manuscript? Our $39 manuscript readiness scan runs the full citation-integrity suite across your entire reference list alongside methodology, statistics, and journal-fit checks. The preview is free.