Retractions play a critical role in maintaining the integrity of the scientific record by correcting the literature and alerting readers to unreliable findings. However, substandard retraction handling practices can undermine this role. This study investigates deficiencies in the retraction handling practices of Emerald Publishing Group, a member publisher of the Committee on Publication Ethics. A multi-source analysis of Crossref’s Retraction Watch Database, Clarivate’s Web of Science Core Collection (WoS-CC), and Google Scholar identified significant discrepancies in the indexing and visibility of retracted articles. Of eighty-seven unique retracted articles analyzed, eighty-three had retraction notices buried in the acknowledgments section without unique digital object identifiers and issuance dates, making it impossible to distinguish between pre- and post-retraction citations. Furthermore, eighty-two of these retracted articles were not flagged as retracted publications in the WoS-CC, where they were inadequately represented as valid work, allowing them to accumulate citations and hence influence despite their retracted status. To address these deficiencies, Emerald must implement standardized retraction handling practices, collaborate with retraction tracking platforms, communicate retraction metadata to indexing services, and conduct regular audits of its journals to enhance transparency and uphold scholarly publishing standards.
Salim Moussa (Thu,) studied this question.