Linking citation and retraction data reveals the demographics of scientific retractions among highly cited authors

Retractions are becoming increasingly common but still account for a small minority of published papers. It would be useful to generate databases where the presence of retractions can be linked to impact metrics of each scientist. We have thus incorporated retraction data in an updated Scopus-based database of highly cited scientists (top 2% in each scientific subfield according to a composite citation indicator). Using data from the Retraction Watch database (RWDB), retraction records were linked to Scopus citation data. Of 55,237 items in RWDB as of August 15, 2024, we excluded non-retractions, retractions clearly not due to any author error, retractions where the paper had been republished, and items not linkable to Scopus records. Eventually, 39,468 eligible retractions were linked to Scopus. Among 217,097 top-cited scientists in career-long impact and 223,152 in single recent year (2023) impact, 7,083 (3.3%) and 8,747 (4.0%), respectively, had at least 1 retraction. Scientists with retracted publications had younger publication age, higher self-citation rates, and larger publication volume than those without any retracted publications. Retractions were more common in the life sciences and rare or nonexistent in several other disciplines. In several developing countries, very high proportions of top-cited scientists had retractions (highest in Senegal (66.7%), Ecuador (28.6%), and Pakistan (27.8%) in career-long citation impact lists). Variability in retraction rates across fields and countries suggests differences in research practices, scrutiny, and ease of retraction. Addition of retraction data enhances the granularity of top-cited scientists’ profiles, aiding in responsible research evaluation. However, caution is needed when interpreting retractions, as they do not always signify misconduct; further analysis on a case-by-case basis is essential. The database should hopefully provide a resource for meta-research and deeper insights into scientific practices.