How often do recent papers cite retracted research?

Method

• Sample: 12,402 recent (2025) journal-articles drawn across 54 selected biomedical journals via the Crossref /works API by ISSN, with reference lists of at least 10 resolvable DOIs (4,969 thinner candidates excluded).
• Check: all 744,770 reference citations (435,108 unique cited DOIs) matched against the Retraction Watch dataset (over 61,000 notices) and Crossref’s update-to[] notices as of 4 June 2026. This is the same matching code path behind the free checker, not a reconstruction of the status at each paper's submission. Severity precedence: retracted > expression of concern > correction.
• Intervals and coverage: the Wilson 95% intervals describe uncertainty within this selected sample; they do not make it representative of all biomedical papers. The batch did not run the production checker’s hijacked-journal clone-domain check, and notice databases can be incomplete. Those omissions do not establish a population lower bound.
• Selection and chronology: 4,969 candidates with fewer than 10 resolvable DOI references were excluded. The 7.1% rate applies to this reference-rich, selected journal panel, not all 2025 papers. Notice dates were not compared with submission dates. Journal-level differences are descriptive and should not be treated as field estimates or quality rankings.

Interpretation corrected 22 September 2026. An earlier presentation called these rates a general lower bound and implied that a submission-time check could have prevented the observed matches. The analysis did not establish either point. The sample, counts, and June status snapshot have not changed.

Data sources are credited below and on the Reference Checker provenance page. If you cite this study, please also cite the Retraction Watch Database (ISSN 2692-4579) and Crossref.

Earlier research on citing retracted work

Studies since 1990 have shown that retracted papers keep being cited. Those studies follow retracted papers forward; this one starts from recent papers and checks what their reference lists cite, so its rates are not comparable with theirs.

1. Pfeifer, M. P., & Snodgrass, G. L. (1990). The continued use of retracted, invalid scientific literature. JAMA, 263(10), 1420-1423. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1990.03440100140020

   Followed 82 completely retracted articles: after retraction they were cited 733 times in support of scientific concepts, and retraction reduced later citation by about 35% against a control group.

2. Budd, J. M., Sievert, M., & Schultz, T. R. (1998). Phenomena of retraction: reasons for retraction and citations to the publications. JAMA, 280(3), 296-297. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.296

   Found 235 retracted articles in MEDLINE, cited 2,034 times after the retraction notice. Of 299 of those citations examined, 19 noted the retraction.

3. Hsiao, T.-K., & Schneider, J. (2021). Continued use of retracted papers: Temporal trends in citations and (lack of) awareness of retractions shown in citation contexts in biomedicine. Quantitative Science Studies, 2(4), 1144-1169. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00155

   Covered 7,813 retracted papers indexed in PubMed. Of 13,252 citation contexts written after retraction, 722 (5.4%) acknowledged it.