Predicting retracted research: a dataset and machine learning approaches
Abstract Background Retractions undermine the scientific record’s reliability and can lead to the continued propagation of flawed research. This study aimed to (1) create a dataset aggregating retraction information with bibliographic metadata, (2) train and evaluate various machine learning approac...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2025-06-01
|
| Series: | Research Integrity and Peer Review |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-025-00168-w |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Abstract Background Retractions undermine the scientific record’s reliability and can lead to the continued propagation of flawed research. This study aimed to (1) create a dataset aggregating retraction information with bibliographic metadata, (2) train and evaluate various machine learning approaches to predict article retractions, and (3) assess each feature’s contribution to feature-based classifier performance using ablation studies. Methods An open-access dataset was developed by combining information from the Retraction Watch database and the OpenAlex API. Using a case-controlled design, retracted research articles were paired with non-retracted articles published in the same period. Traditional feature-based classifiers and models leveraging contextual language representations were then trained and evaluated. Model performance was assessed using accuracy, precision, recall, and the F1-score. Results The Llama 3.2 base model achieved the highest overall accuracy. The Random Forest classifier achieved a precision of 0.687 for identifying non-retracted articles, while the Llama 3.2 base model reached a precision of 0.683 for identifying retracted articles. Traditional feature-based classifiers generally outperformed most contextual language models, except for the Llama 3.2 base model, which showed competitive performance across several metrics. Conclusions Although no single model excelled across all metrics, our findings indicate that machine learning techniques can effectively support the identification of retracted research. These results provide a foundation for developing automated tools to assist publishers and reviewers in detecting potentially problematic publications. Further research should focus on refining these models and investigating additional features to improve predictive performance. Trial registration Not applicable. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2058-8615 |