01 · The Question
Can a Retracted Paper Still Be Worth Citing?
A paper can stop being reliable scientific evidence without disappearing from the history of a field. Before its retraction, it may have shaped a theory, influenced clinical or educational practice, prompted subsequent experiments, attracted extensive criticism, or redirected an entire line of inquiry.
If you are reconstructing that history, leaving the paper out could make your account less accurate. Yet citing it in the ordinary way risks giving readers the impression that you are using its findings as current evidence.
The key distinction is therefore not simply whether a retracted paper can appear in your references. It is what your citation is meant to establish .
02 · The Short Answer
You Can Cite a Retracted Paper When the Retraction Is Part of the Point
In Brief
Yes. You can cite a retracted paper when it is genuinely necessary to discuss its historical influence, the development of an idea, a research-integrity episode, or the retraction itself, but you should clearly identify the paper as retracted and not present its original findings as ordinary valid evidence.
The citation serves a different evidential function in this situation. You are documenting what was published and how it influenced subsequent scholarship, not using the retracted findings to establish that the original scientific claim is true.
03 · What You Need to Know
Historical Relevance Survives Retraction
Retraction Changes Evidential Status, Not the Fact That Publication Happened
Retraction is intended to correct the scholarly record. It does not erase the historical fact that an article was published, read, discussed, cited, or acted upon.
ICMJE recommends that retracted articles remain in the public domain and be clearly labelled as retracted. It also recommends that the original article and retraction be linked electronically in both directions. This preserves the record while communicating that the article's status has changed.
That distinction is essential for historical analysis. If a paper influenced later research before being retracted, the influence itself remains part of the history even though the paper should no longer be treated as ordinary valid evidence for its original conclusions.
The claim was scientifically valid
This requires appropriate current evidence supporting the substantive proposition.
The paper influenced the field
This is a historical claim about what researchers cited, discussed, investigated, adopted, criticized, or responded to.
A retraction directly affects the first proposition. It does not make the second proposition impossible.
Your Citation Must Match the Claim You Are Making
Suppose a retracted article proposed a mechanism that stimulated a decade of subsequent experiments. You may need the original paper when explaining where that line of investigation came from.
That does not justify writing that the mechanism is established and attaching the retracted paper as supporting evidence. Instead, you might explain that the subsequently retracted paper proposed the mechanism and then document how later research responded to it.
The difference may look small at the level of a reference list, but it is substantial at the level of scholarly reasoning.
Purpose of citation
What the citation establishes
Appropriate treatment
Supporting the original scientific finding
That the substantive claim is currently supported
Do not rely on the retracted paper as ordinary valid evidence
Tracing the history of an idea
That the paper introduced, popularized, or influenced a line of thinking
Potentially appropriate when the retracted status is clear
Discussing a research-integrity case
What was published and what subsequently happened
The original paper and retraction notice may both be relevant
Studying citation behavior
How later literature engaged with the publication
The retracted article may be a necessary object of analysis
Explaining why later studies were conducted
The intellectual or empirical motivation for subsequent work
Potentially appropriate with explicit historical framing
Make the Retracted Status Visible in the Prose
If readers need to know that the paper was retracted in order to interpret your discussion correctly, do not leave that information buried in a database record or hope that a reference manager will display it.
State the status in the surrounding prose. Phrases such as "the subsequently retracted study proposed..." or "before its retraction, the paper influenced..." can make the function of the citation clear without implying that the findings remain valid.
The precise wording should reflect what you actually know. If the paper was retracted because of a stated analytical error, you can report that reason with appropriate attribution. If the notice does not establish misconduct, do not casually convert retraction into an accusation of fraud.
Consider Citing the Retraction Notice as Well
The original paper documents what was published. The retraction notice documents the later editorial action and, ideally, why it occurred. When both are relevant to your discussion, citing both can make the scholarly record easier for readers to reconstruct.
The National Library of Medicine creates reciprocal links in PubMed between citations for retracted articles and their retraction notices. ICMJE similarly recommends bidirectional linking between the original article and retraction online.
ICMJE's manuscript-preparation guidance tells authors to check that references do not cite retracted articles except in the context of referring to the retraction. This reinforces the distinction between ordinary evidential citation and citation for a context in which the retraction itself matters.
Historical Influence Should Be Demonstrated, Not Assumed
A paper being famous or highly cited does not automatically establish the particular influence you attribute to it. If you claim that a retracted publication changed practice, initiated a research program, or shaped a theoretical debate, support that historical claim with appropriate evidence.
Later articles, reviews, editorials, guidelines, citation analyses, archival material, or other relevant sources may help establish how the publication was received and used. Citation counts alone show attention more readily than they show intellectual agreement or practical influence.
Likewise, post-retraction citations require interpretation. Some authors may cite the article precisely because it was retracted. Others may discuss methodological problems. Still others may unfortunately continue to cite the original finding as valid. A citation count cannot distinguish these functions by itself.
Do Not Rewrite History by Removing the Paper Entirely
There is an understandable temptation to omit a retracted publication from a historical narrative because it is no longer reliable evidence. In some contexts, that would distort the record.
If later researchers genuinely responded to the publication, the paper belongs in an accurate account of that development. The task is to preserve both facts simultaneously: the paper mattered historically, and its publication status later changed.
This is one reason a retracted article can remain a legitimate object of scholarly study even though apparently valid information inside a retracted paper should not simply be rescued and treated as ordinary unaffected evidence.
Watch Out
Do not use "historical context" as a convenient label for a citation that is actually doing evidential work. If removing the retracted finding would weaken your substantive claim about what is true now, you are probably relying on it as evidence rather than merely documenting its historical influence.
04 · A Practical Example
How the Same Retracted Paper Can Be Cited Appropriately or Inappropriately
Hypothetical Example
A Retracted Study That Inspired Later Research
Imagine that a study reported a striking relationship between two variables. The paper attracted considerable attention and prompted several research teams to investigate the proposed relationship. Years later, the original article was retracted because the journal concluded that its central results were unreliable.
Inappropriate use You write that the relationship exists and cite the retracted study as evidence supporting that statement.
Historical use You explain that the subsequently retracted paper initially reported the relationship and motivated a wave of later investigations.
Document the changed status You identify the article as retracted and cite the retraction notice where relevant.
Evaluate the current scientific question separately You use non-retracted contemporary evidence to determine whether the relationship itself is supported.
This preserves the paper's role in the intellectual history without allowing its historical importance to masquerade as current evidential validity.
06 · What This Means for You
Decide What the Citation Is Supposed to Prove
Before retaining a retracted paper in your references, finish this sentence: "I need this citation because it demonstrates that..." Your answer usually reveals whether the citation is historical or evidential.
A simple decision framework
If the citation is meant to establish that the original scientific claim is true
Use appropriate non-retracted evidence instead of treating the retracted publication as ordinary support.
If the citation documents the origin or historical influence of an idea
The retracted paper may be appropriate, provided its status is clearly communicated and the claimed influence is adequately supported.
If you are discussing the retraction itself
Use the original paper and the formal retraction notice as appropriate to the point you are documenting.
If later researchers continued citing the paper
Examine how those citations used it rather than assuming that citation frequency represents continued acceptance of the original finding.
If the retraction reason matters to your argument
Report the documented reason accurately and avoid adding unsupported claims about misconduct or intent.
07 · A Quick Checklist
Before Citing a Retracted Paper for Historical Context
Before keeping the citation, check:
Confirm that the article is formally retracted and read the retraction notice.
Identify whether you are documenting historical influence or using the original finding as scientific evidence.
Make the retracted status explicit in the surrounding prose when it is material to interpretation.
Consider citing the formal retraction notice alongside the original publication when both are relevant.
Support claims about the paper's historical influence with evidence rather than assuming influence from citation count alone.
Use current non-retracted evidence for claims about what the field presently knows.
Follow the citation and reference requirements of the journal, institution, or style you are using.
09 · The Bottom Line
Retraction Does Not Erase a Paper From Intellectual History
The Bottom Line
Yes, citing a retracted paper can be appropriate when you are documenting its historical influence, discussing the retraction, or studying the publication itself, provided that its retracted status is unmistakable and you do not present its original findings as ordinary valid evidence.
Keep the function of the citation clear. Use the retracted paper to document what happened in the scholarly record, the retraction notice to document the subsequent editorial action, and appropriate current evidence to establish what researchers can presently support.
11 · Cite this Guide
How to Cite This Guide
This guide is intended to be read, shared, and used in research, teaching, and academic work. If you draw on its ideas, explanations, or other content, please acknowledge the source by citing the guide. Doing so gives appropriate credit and helps your readers locate the original resource.
Recommended (Field Guide)
APA
MLA
Chicago
Copy Citation
