Retraction Without Proof: Deciding About Publications When Fabrication Is Suspected but Cannot Be Shown

Source abstract

Journals must decide on publications by an author whose misconduct is documented elsewhere when no allegation attaches to the individual article and verification can no longer be carried out: the underlying data are not available, and the publications predate any surviving retention obligation. In 2022, two intensive care journals received the same request to retract such articles and replied in public; one set out the questions the request raised and left them unanswered. This narrative review addresses these issues. The reporting followed the SANRA guidelines. PubMed and Embase were searched on 13 September 2026, with forward and backward citation tracking, and the published records of one of the two journals were examined. Their replies applied different standards to the same decision: one retracted what the author’s former university had publicly disavowed, while the other retracted because the publications could no longer be relied upon and readers had to be warned. Published evidence shows that expressions of concern are issued inconsistently and late and are almost never lifted. In the case examined, expressions of concern were promised twice but never issued; none of the ten retracted articles carried a notice on their own page; and the CrossMark button, where it is shown at all, reports no data. The reliability of the publication, not proof of fabrication, should govern the decision.