Scientific paper retractions do not terminate their academic impact; rather, they create a ghost-like existence in the scientific literature. This study examines the ‘afterlife’ of retracted articles in high-prestige journals. Accordingly, it analyses the citation patterns after retraction of 994 retracted articles from Nature Index journals and their 21,047 citations. The findings indicate that 93.9% of these articles continued receiving citations post-retraction, with 47.86% of citations being neutral and 39.79% carrying a positive tone. In descriptive comparisons, categories involving ethical or misconduct-related issues showed a larger reduction in citations after retraction, whereas categories dominated by scientific errors exhibited a more moderate decrease. These patterns should be interpreted as associations rather than as definitive causal differences, particularly because retraction notices may include multiple overlapping reasons and vary in the level of detail they provide. Citation persistence also varied by section: introduction citations remained stable, while citations in the ‘Methods’ and ‘Results’ sections declined significantly. These results highlight the complex and lasting impact of retracted articles on scientific discourse, emphasising the need for enhanced retraction visibility and improved citation tracking mechanisms.
Müge Akbulut (2026) studied this question.