Reasons for retractions in potential predatory journals

Despite growing scholarly attention to both research integrity issues and predatory publishing, the phenomenon of retraction in potential predatory journals (PPJs), especially reasons for retraction, remains underexplored. Drawing on the revived Beall’s List and the Retraction Watch Database, we identified 16 direct and three indirect reasons for 717 PPJ retractions. The indirect reasons reflected institutional investigations by three stakeholder groups: journal authorities (editors and publishers), research institutions, and research integrity overseers. Fourteen direct reasons were author-related, with five involving content issues and eight concerning broader breaches of research integrity. Another author-related direct reason was retracting to publish elsewhere, accounting for 60.1% of all PPJ retractions. The two non-author direct reasons involved errors made by journal authorities and third parties. PPJ retractions in the Natural Sciences covered all direct retraction reasons, whereas those in the Humanities and Social Sciences involved only four, and cross-disciplinary retractions involved five. The 10 countries with the most retractions for direct reasons contributed 86.5% of the total, with seven Asian countries (Malaysia, China, Iran, India, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Thailand) representing 72.2%. Some direct retraction reasons were significantly associated with disciplinary groupings and/or primary affiliation countries.