A tiny cluster of scientists is responsible for a disproportionate share of retracted RCTs, with some of the worst offenders also among the most-cited researchers in their fields, a new analysis finds.

Just six researchers account for more than a fifth of all retracted randomised controlled trials worldwide, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open[link here].

The analysis, which examined 1,300 retracted RCTs and 367 authors, identified 30 so-called “superretractors”: scientists who have accumulated an unusually high number of retractions. Six of those 30 alone accounted for 22% of all retracted RCTs in the dataset. Three came from anaesthesiology, three from endocrinology and metabolism.

Commentators writing in the same journal [link here] described these superretractors as acting like “superspreaders” of research misconduct, arguing their unchecked output normalises fraud and may encourage imitation by other researchers seeking recognition.

What set the six worst offenders apart was not just the scale of their fabrications, the commentators said, but the fact that investigators at their institutions had followed up on whistleblower concerns, and journal editors had confirmed the absence of original patient or laboratory data. Without that scrutiny, the commentators warned, problematic authors can go undetected for years in research environments with limited oversight.

Highly cited, yet highly retracted

Perhaps most troubling for the integrity of the clinical literature: retraction did not prevent some of these researchers from becoming leading voices in their fields. The study found 163 career-long top-cited scientists with 10 or more retractions, and a further 174 top-cited scientists in 2024 with 10 or more retractions.

Eighteen career-long top-cited scientists with at least 10 retractions, spanning 10 fields, accounted for a quarter of all retracted RCTs in the dataset. Of those retracted trials, 84% were also co-authored by a superretractor.

The commentators argued this sent a damaging signal to the broader scientific community: that repeated misconduct need not stand in the way of career success, potentially incentivising others to commit fraud for personal gain.

The study authors noted that while multiple retractions by the same author typically trigger scrutiny of their other work, the output of top-cited scientists with many retracted publications had received comparatively little attention. “Additional articles by these authors may deserve scrutiny,” they wrote.

What needs to change

The study proposed several measures to strengthen research integrity, including:

• Flagging trials by authors with multiple retractions or expressions of concern for heightened scrutiny
• Requiring publishers to adopt timely, transparent and systematic integrity checks for new submissions and flagged existing work
• Shifting post-publication oversight from individual articles to a whole-of-author review

The study authors acknowledged a key limitation: retractions are not randomly selected and represent only a fraction of the literature that probably warrants retraction, making it difficult to draw firm conclusions about the factors driving misconduct or poor research practice.