top of page
India is now the world's second-highest country for research retractions and NIRF now penalises institutions for retracted papers, with the penalty strengthening every ranking cycle. Here is what every Indian researcher and research guide needs to do before their next journal submission.

Are you a research guide supervising PhD scholars? A faculty member working towards your Scopus publication targets? Or a Dean of Research responsible for your institution's research output? If yes, there is one database that should be part of your pre-submission routine and one that is not yet standard practice in most Indian research workflows.

It is called Retraction Watch. It is free, updated every working day, and has over 67,000 retraction records going back to the 1970s. Given that India's retraction rate has risen sharply in recent years and that NIRF now penalises institutions for retracted papers, making it part of your process before every submission is no longer optional good practice. It is essential.

Venkatesh Ecole Founder
L S Venkatesh

31 Oct 2025

3400 Words
Read Time 12 m
Venkatesh Ecole Founder
L S Venkatesh

31 Oct 2025

3400 Words
Read Time 12 m
Venkatesh Ecole Founder
L S Venkatesh

31 Oct 2025

3400 Words
Read Time 12 m
Venkatesh Ecole Founder
L S Venkatesh

31 Oct 2025

3400 Words
Read Time 12 m
Venkatesh Ecole Founder
L S Venkatesh

31 Oct 2025

3400 Words
Read Time 12 m
Venkatesh Ecole Founder
L S Venkatesh

31 Oct 2025

3400 Words
Read Time 12 m

Before You Submit: How Indian Researchers Can Use Retraction Watch to Protect Their Work

Venkatesh Ecole Founder
L S Venkatesh

31 Oct 2025

3400 Words
Read Time 12 m

The India Retraction Problem By the Numbers

Before we look at how to use it, let us start with the numbers - because the scale is significant.

5,412

Total retractions from India between 1996 and 2024, with 57.55% occurring in the last four years alone (2021–2024).

Source: Gundur & Kumar, 2025; India Research Watch analysis

887

Research paper retractions from India in 2025 alone, making India the world's second-highest country for retractions, after China.

Source: Retraction Watch Database, 2025

Top 5 Countries by Total Retractions

To understand where India stands globally, here is how the top five countries compare by total retraction count across major publishers based on analysis of the Retraction Watch database covering 1997 to 2026:

Rank
Country
Share of Total Retractions
Key Driver
1
China
52.54%
Paper mills, fake peer review (disproportionate 16.5% of global output but 52.5% of retractions)
2
India
7.25%
Fake peer review, duplication, "publish or perish" culture
3
United States
5.72%
Data fabrication / falsification; declining trend in recent years
4
Saudi Arabia
2.83%
International collaborations with high-risk partners; authorship issues
5
Iran
2.51%
Plagiarism and duplicate publication; high publication pressure

Source: Waheed et al. (2026). How Ten Publishers Retract Research — analysis of the Retraction Watch Database, 1997–2026. arXiv:2602.19197. China-affiliated institutions appear on over 52% of retractions despite producing approximately 16.5% of global research output.

A peer-reviewed study on retraction trends in India's top NIRF-ranked universities found that fake or compromised peer review is responsible for nearly half of all retractions (47.76%), followed by duplication at 18.30%, data issues at 12.05%, and plagiarism at 8.03%.

Paper mills, fake peer review (disproportionate — 16.5% of global output but 52.5% of retractions)

Paper mills, fake peer review (disproportionate — 16.5% of global output but 52.5% of retractions)

Add a Title

Add paragraph text. Click “Edit Text” to update the font, size and more. To change and reuse text themes, go to Site Styles.

Paper mills, fake peer review (disproportionate — 16.5% of global output but 52.5% of retractions)

Paper mills, fake peer review (disproportionate — 16.5% of global output but 52.5% of retractions)

Add a Title

Add paragraph text. Click “Edit Text” to update the font, size and more. To change and reuse text themes, go to Site Styles.

Paper mills, fake peer review (disproportionate — 16.5% of global output but 52.5% of retractions)

Paper mills, fake peer review (disproportionate — 16.5% of global output but 52.5% of retractions)

Add a Title

Add paragraph text. Click “Edit Text” to update the font, size and more. To change and reuse text themes, go to Site Styles.

Paper mills, fake peer review (disproportionate — 16.5% of global output but 52.5% of retractions)

Paper mills, fake peer review (disproportionate — 16.5% of global output but 52.5% of retractions)

Add a Title

Add paragraph text. Click “Edit Text” to update the font, size and more. To change and reuse text themes, go to Site Styles.

Paper mills, fake peer review (disproportionate — 16.5% of global output but 52.5% of retractions)

Paper mills, fake peer review (disproportionate — 16.5% of global output but 52.5% of retractions)

Add a Title

Add paragraph text. Click “Edit Text” to update the font, size and more. To change and reuse text themes, go to Site Styles.

What has changed recently is that the consequences are no longer limited to the individual researcher. The National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) introduced negative marking for retracted research papers under the Research and Professional Practice (RP) parameter, starting with the 2025 rankings cycle. NAAC has introduced similar negative marking. As of 2026, this penalty is active and carries forward into every subsequent ranking cycle and the weightage increases with each cycle. Crucially, even a paper retracted years after its original publication will attract a penalty in the current ranking year. There is no time limit.

What this means for you: A single retracted paper from your department does not just affect the individual researcher. It directly impacts your institution's NIRF ranking score. For universities competing on the Research and Professional Practice parameter, this is a risk no one can afford to ignore.

What Is Retraction Watch and What Is It Not?

Retraction Watch was started in 2010 by two science journalists, Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus, as a blog to track retractions in academic journals. In September 2023, it was formally acquired by Crossref, the global DOI registration body, making it part of the mainstream scholarly publishing infrastructure, not just a watchdog site.

Today, the database holds over 67,000 retraction records, updated every working day. It goes back to retractions from the 1970s and covers all disciplines. For each retracted paper, it records the title, authors, journal, publisher, institution, country, date of retraction, and most importantly the reason for retraction. The full dataset is free to download from Crossref's GitLab repository.

A quick clarification: retractionwatch.com and retractionwatch.org are the same organisation - both lead to the same website. The Crossref URL (crossref.org/documentation/retrieve-metadata/retraction-watch/) is Crossref's guide for accessing the database programmatically - useful for your institution's IT or library team if you want to build an automated checking workflow.

One important limitation to keep in mind: the database is not exhaustive. There are what Retraction Watch itself calls "stealth retractions", papers quietly removed from a journal's table of contents without any formal retraction notice being issued. These often do not appear in the database. A clean search result is reassuring, but it is not a guarantee that a paper has never been questioned.

The Five Reasons Papers Get Retracted and What They Mean for Your Submission

Knowing why papers get retracted helps you screen your own work and your reference list more effectively. The Retraction Watch database uses a detailed taxonomy of retraction reasons. For Indian researchers, the most important categories to be aware of are:

Reason for Retraction
What It Means
India Prevalence
Paper mill / contract cheating
The paper was purchased from a service that sells ready-to-submit manuscripts.
Growing not fully captured in existing categorisation
Plagiarism
Text or ideas copied from other sources without attribution. Conventional similarity detection tools catch much of this but not all.
8.03% at NIRF top-10 universities
Data issues (fabrication or falsification)
Data was invented, manipulated, or misrepresented. Image misuse, manipulating figures or reusing images across papers, accounts for approximately 53% of retracted Indian government-funded research papers.
12.05% at NIRF top-10 universities
Duplication / self-plagiarism
Substantially the same paper published in more than one journal, or a paper that re-uses large sections of the author's own prior work without disclosure.
18.30% at NIRF top-10 universities
Fake / compromised peer review
The peer review process was manipulated, typically by suggesting fake reviewers or intercepting review requests. The paper was never legitimately reviewed.
47.76% of retractions at NIRF top-10 universities

India vs China: Top Reasons for Retraction Compared

India and China are the two countries with the most retractions globally, but the reasons differ significantly. Understanding this matters because the interventions required are different too.

India — Primary Retraction Reasons

Fake / Compromised Peer Review

33%

Data Fraud / Fabrication

17%

Plagiarism

15%

Duplication

18%

Ethical / Other

17%

India sources: Agrawal, A. (2025) via The Diplomat; NIRF Top-10 University study (Tandfonline, 2026). China sources: Sebo & Sebo, JMIR 2025; Waheed et al. arXiv 2602.19197 (2026). China figures are approximate. Paper mill and fake peer review categories are often combined in reported data.

China — Primary Retraction Reasons

Paper Mills & Fake Peer Review

~60%

Data Fabrication / Image Manipulation

~20%

Plagiarism

~8%

Duplication

~7%

Other / Undisclosed

~5%

Retractions by Subject Discipline : A Global Picture

Not all disciplines face equal risk. Engineering, Computer Science, and Clinical Sciences account for the highest retraction rates globally, disciplines that are heavily represented in Indian higher education.

Retraction Rate by Discipline — Retractions per 10,000 publications (Global, 2022–2025)

Engineering & Computer Science

33%

Clinical & Life Sciences

17%

Mathematics

15%

Social Sciences

18%

Physics

17%

Business & Management

18%

Arts & Humanities

17%

Source: Ning et al. (2025). Mapping Academic Integrity: Global Retraction Trends Explored through a Topic Lens. arXiv:2511.21176. Figures represent retractions per 10,000 published articles globally, 2022–2025 data. Social Sciences and Business are author estimates based on reported data ranges; all other figures are directly cited. Arts & Humanities figure: Candal-Pedreira et al. (arXiv:2505.06448, 2025).

The dominance of fake peer review in India's retraction profile makes journal verification a critical pre-submission step. The Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker is a practical tool for this. More on that below.

How to Use Retraction Watch Before You Submit: A Step-by-Step Guide

The database is searchable at retractiondatabase.org. From October 2024, you need to enter at least one search criterion before results are shown, due to the database's growing size. Here are five practical ways every Indian researcher should use it before submitting a paper.

1

Check every paper you plan to cite

This is the single most important use of Retraction Watch. Your reference list may include papers that were retracted after you first cited them, particularly if you are referencing work published between 2018 and 2024, the period when India's retraction rate rose most sharply.

Search by the DOI or title of each key reference. If the paper appears in the database, it has been retracted, corrected, or flagged with an expression of concern. A manuscript that cites a retracted paper is a problem a journal editor will spot during peer review and it can lead to outright rejection. In the worst case, if your conclusions relied on a retracted source, your own published paper may later be questioned.

"One of the current concerns in the academic community is the frequency with which new articles cite retracted papers, whose results are arguably no longer reliable. Searching the database can help scholars avoid the embarrassment of citing a retracted work."

— iSchools article on the Retraction Watch Database

Do not rely on Zotero, Mendeley, or any other reference manager to alert you to retractions. Most do not flag retracted papers automatically. A manual check against Retraction Watch is necessary.

2

Check the journal you are submitting to

Retraction Watch maintains a Hijacked Journal Checker - currently listing over 450 journals that have been cloned or impersonated by predatory publishers. These sites copy the names and ISSNs of legitimate journals, collect submission fees, and publish papers without any real peer review. Papers in hijacked journals almost always end up retracted.

Researchers working under pressure to meet Scopus or Web of Science publication targets are particularly vulnerable to these scams and India's high retraction count from journals with peer review issues reflects this. The journal name and ISSN can look entirely authentic. Always verify the journal before you submit.

You can also search the Retraction Watch database by journal name to check its retraction history. If a journal shows a high number of retractions, especially for peer review manipulation, that is a warning sign, even if the journal is indexed in a reputable database.

3

Search by co-author or collaborator name

If you are collaborating with a researcher whose prior work you do not know well, take a moment to check their publication history in the database. Use the wildcard search function ; entering *sharma*, for example, will return all records where "sharma" appears anywhere in the author field, catching name variations and initials.

Researchers writing systematic reviews or meta-analyses compile findings from many studies. If even one included study turns out to have been retracted, it can undermine the entire review's conclusions. The Cochrane Collaboration has documented several cases where systematic reviews had to be withdrawn or updated because a key included study was retracted after the review was published.

4

Check your own prior publications

This may sound unnecessary, surely you would know if your own paper had been retracted? In practice, not always. Publishers sometimes issue retraction notices or expressions of concern without properly notifying the authors, particularly when the action is initiated by the journal following an investigation. The Retraction Watch database includes several documented cases where authors learned of their retraction only after the notice was publicly posted.

If your new paper builds on your own earlier work, verify the status of that earlier paper too. If it has received an expression of concern since publication and you cite it without disclosing this, it can create a problem for your new submission.

5

Use the full dataset for systematic reviews and meta-analyses

This is not about suspicion. It is basic due diligence. Some journals now check author histories against Retraction Watch as part of their peer review process, and this practice is growing. A prior retraction on a co-author's record does not automatically disqualify your paper, but it will attract closer scrutiny. Knowing this in advance allows you to address it with the editor directly, rather than being caught off guard.

For this use case, rather than checking papers one by one through the web interface, download the full Retraction Watch dataset from Crossref's GitLab repository and cross-reference your complete list of included studies against it. Your institution's librarian or an IT team member can help set this up. The dataset is free, updated daily, and available as a CSV file.

The Pre-Submission Checklist for Indian Researchers

Before submitting any paper, go through each of the following steps. Catching a problem at this stage is always better than managing it after publication.

✓

Reference list checked - search the DOI or title of every key citation in the Retraction Watch database at retractiondatabase.org

✓

Target journal verified - check the journal against the Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker (450+ hijacked journals listed)

✓

Journal retraction history reviewed - search the journal name in the database; unusually high rates of fake peer review retractions are a warning sign

✓

Co-author history checked - search by co-author name using wildcard function for any unfamiliar collaborators

✓

Own prior work confirmed - verify that any paper you are building on has not received an expression of concern or retraction since publication

✓

Manuscript screened for similarity and AI content - run through an academic integrity tool before submission; conventional similarity checks catch plagiarism but not paper mill content or suspicious patterns

✓

Images and figures verified - image misuse or misrepresentation accounts for 53% of retractions in Indian government-funded research; ensure all figures are original or properly licensed

What Retraction Watch Cannot Catch and Where Compilatio Comes In

Retraction Watch looks backward ; it tells you whether a paper has already been retracted. It cannot tell you whether the paper you are about to submit is at risk of being retracted.

That is where pre-submission screening tools come in. Conventional plagiarism detection catches directly copied text, which matters. The UGC's 2018 regulations mandate similarity thresholds for all PhD submissions, and these thresholds apply to publications too. But similarity detection does not catch the two leading causes of Indian retractions: fake peer review (which is a journal-side problem) and paper mill content (which is text that is structurally original but was purchased or fabricated).

Paper mill detection - which Compilatio offers, goes a step further. It analyses writing patterns, citation structures, and document-level signals associated with purchased or fabricated manuscripts. A paper from a paper mill usually passes a similarity check because it is technically original text. But it exhibits structural characteristics in writing patterns, citation structures, and document-level signals, that go beyond what similarity detection can measure, and that paper mill detection tools are specifically trained to identify.

For Indian researchers and research guides, the right pre-submission workflow combines both : use Retraction Watch to verify your references and target journal, and use a platform like Compilatio to screen your manuscript for what similarity detection alone cannot catch.

WHY THIS MATTERS : THE COMPILATIO CONNECTION

Two tools. Both ends of the risk. Used together, they close the loop.

Retraction Watch and Compilatio are not alternatives. They do different jobs and Indian researchers need both.

Compilatio Paper Mill Detection

→ FORWARD-LOOKING

Does my manuscript show characteristics that lead to retraction? Screen for paper mill signals, fabricated data patterns, and suspicious writing before submission.

Retraction Watch

← BACKWARD-LOOKING

Has any paper I am citing already been retracted? Check your reference list, your target journal, and your co-authors before the paper goes out.

India's two largest retraction causes - fake peer review and paper mill content, both pass conventional similarity checks. They require forward-looking detection. Compilatio's Paper Mill Detection identifies early indicators of suspicious and manipulated research before submission, giving your institution a line of defence that neither Retraction Watch nor a plagiarism checker can provide alone.

What Research Guides and Deans of Research Should Do Institutionally

Individual researchers can use Retraction Watch independently. But the real impact comes from making it part of your institution's standard research workflow. Here are three practical steps that research guides and Deans of Research can take right away.

Make Retraction Watch checking a required step before PhD thesis submission

Every PhD scholar's reference list should be checked against the Retraction Watch database before the thesis goes to the external examiner. The supervisor or research guide should confirm this has been done and keep a record of the check for the institution's IQAC files. With NAAC now introducing negative marking for retractions, this is an institutional governance requirement, not just good scholarly practice.

Subscribe to the Retraction Watch newsletter

The Retraction Watch newsletter (retractionwatch.com/newsletter) is free and arrives Monday through Friday, with a Weekend Reads edition. For a research guide supervising scholars in a specific field, this is the easiest way to stay current on retractions in your discipline without checking the database every day. It takes five minutes to scan each morning. Subscribe and share it with your research scholars.

Integrate retraction checking into your institution's pre-submission screening workflow

The full Retraction Watch dataset is freely downloadable from Crossref. Your library team or IT department can set up a straightforward automated check that cross-references any outgoing reference list against the dataset. The technical setup is modest but the outcome is a scalable, auditable process, precisely the kind of documented quality control that supports NAAC's IQAC framework and accreditation documentation.

A Note on the NIRF Retraction Penalty - What It Actually Means

The NIRF penalty for retracted papers applies within the Research and Professional Practice (RP) parameter, which carries 30% weightage in the overall score. The negative marking introduced in the 2025 cycle is active in 2026 with increased weightage, and will continue to grow more stringent in subsequent cycles. NBA Chairman Anil Sahasrabudhe confirmed: "The negative score on account of retraction would be increased in the ranking round in 2026." That time has arrived. Every institution participating in NIRF 2026 is already being assessed under this framework.

The critical point: even if a paper was published and counted positively toward a previous year's ranking, a retraction discovered later attracts a penalty in the current ranking year. There is no statute of limitations.

The penalty is intentionally designed as an institutional deterrent. As NBA Chairperson Anil Sahasrabudhe stated: "In many institutes, a large number of research papers are getting retracted over a period of two to three years. The credibility of these institutes is an issue. Unless we give negative marks, people will not correct it."

A single retracted paper now carries consequences for the entire institution - the department, the Dean of Research, the IQAC, and ultimately the ranking. Pre-submission screening is no longer just an individual responsibility. It is a core institutional quality assurance function.

Screen your manuscripts before submission - not after
retraction

Compilatio's Paper Mill Detection identifies early indicators of suspicious and
manipulated research papers before they reach a journal. Used alongside Retraction
Watch, it gives your institution a complete pre-submission research integrity workflow.

About the author

L S Venkatesh is the founder of Ecole Solutions, a technology-enabled learning and academic integrity solutions company headquartered in Bangalore. Ecole Solutions is the authorised India partner for Compilatio, France, one of Europe's most trusted academic integrity platforms. Ecole Solutions works with universities, research institutions, and professional bodies across India to strengthen research integrity, support accreditation compliance, and promote ethical scholarship. For enquiries, write to hello@ecoleglobal.com.

References

5. Gundur, B.N. & Kumar, S. (2025). Trajectory of Research Retractions by Indian Scholars: Trends, Causes and Ethical Imperatives. ResearchGate.
bottom of page