# Claims map — every quantitative claim traced to its generated source

**Regenerated 2026-07-31 against the v3 analysis run and the referee reanalyses.** The previous
version of this file referenced a superseded run (totals 71,476 / 9,165 / 62,311) and no longer
matched the manuscript; it has been replaced entirely. Every row below was re-derived from the
files named in the Source column.

Snapshot: `retraction_watch.csv`, Crossref GitLab distribution, commit
`dda8c8749c6ac35923f69162936c53fc9b9f5e3c`, 65,517,426 bytes, SHA-256
`1B61BABC73AD7F9861175ECB5DECC2B5C3BE33E0464C40489355A5BB96B9EF2F`, downloaded 31 July 2026.

Regenerate everything with:

```cmd
cd C:\Users\Admin\pubfast
run.cmd Analyze-Retractions2 -Csv .\data\retraction_watch_gitlab.csv -OutDir .\runs\ai-retractions-v3
python .\tools\matched_dispersion.py .\data\retraction_watch_gitlab.csv .\runs\ai-retractions-v3\tables
python .\tools\referee_reanalysis.py all
python .\tools\regen_esm1.py
python .\tools\verify_references.py
powershell .\tools\New-FiguresTiff.ps1  -RunDir .\runs\ai-retractions-v3 -OutDir .\papers\ai-retractions\figures
powershell .\tools\New-Fig3Forest.ps1   -RunDir .\runs\ai-retractions-v3 -OutDir .\papers\ai-retractions\figures
powershell .\tools\ConvertTo-Docx.ps1   -Markdown .\papers\ai-retractions\00-manuscript.md
```

All source paths below are relative to `runs\ai-retractions-v3\tables\` unless stated otherwise.

## 1 Selection and scale

| # | Claim as written | Section | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 71,448 records in snapshot, 20 fields | 3.1, Table 2 | `t1_selection_flow.csv` |
| 2 | Exclusions: 3,585 EoC; 1,499 corrections; 160 reinstatements; 191 blank | Table 2 | `t1_selection_flow.csv` |
| 3 | 66,013 retractions analyzed | Abstract, 3.3, Table 2, 4.1 | `t1_selection_flow.csv` |
| 4 | 9,161 machine-attributed (13.9%) | Abstract, title, 4.1 | `t1_selection_flow.csv`; 9161/66013 = 13.88% |
| 5 | 56,852 comparison records | Table 2, Table 5 | `t1_selection_flow.csv` |
| 6 | Absent before 2010 (0 of 3,241); 28 records in 2010-2019 among 24,053; 28 in the 27,294 before 2020 | Abstract, 4.1, Table 3 | `t2_by_year.csv` plus direct pre-2010 count |
| 7 | 2023 share 41.75% (40.91–42.59) | Abstract, 4.1, Table 3 | `t2_by_year.csv` |
| 8 | 2024 23.06%; 2025 22.05%; 2026 partial 3.86% | Table 3 | `t2_by_year.csv` |

## 2 Concentration and notice structure

| # | Claim as written | Section | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 9 | Hindawi 6,409 (69.96%); IOS Press 1,039 (11.34%) | 4.2, Table 4 | `t11_publishers.csv` |
| 10 | Country field exactly China 6,590 (71.9%), exactly India 816 (8.9%); China anywhere in field 7,223 (78.9%), India 1,263 (13.8%) | 4.2, Table 4 | `t13_countries.csv` plus split-field recount |
| 11 | J. Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 1,039 (11.34%); J. Healthcare Engineering 600 (6.55%) | Table 4 | `t12_journals.csv` |
| 12 | 8,127 distinct notices; only two cover >1 article; 657 + 379 = 1,036 records | 4.2, 4.5 | `t14_notice_structure.csv` |
| 13 | Median spread within multi-article notices 4,210 days | 4.2 | `t25_notice_level_machine.csv` |

## 3 Timing: location, crude dispersion, and the matched correction

| # | Claim as written | Section | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 14 | Median 491 (486–497) vs 488 (481–490); Q1/Q3, mean, SD, MAD, max | Table 5 | `t3_lag_descriptives.csv` |
| 15 | U = 274,613,105; z = 8.39; Cliff's delta 0.055 (0.042–0.067) | 4.3 | `t3b_mannwhitney.csv` |
| 16 | MAD 267.5 vs 768.5, ratio 0.348; Brown–Forsythe t = −75.25, df = 37,255 | 4.3, Table 7 | `t3c_brownforsythe.csv`, `t5_sensitivity_location_and_dispersion.csv` |
| 17 | Cluster-robust median difference 3 days (−17 to 43), 10,000 replicates, 61,135 clusters | Abstract, 4.3, Table 6 | `t50_bootstrap_10k.csv` |
| 18 | Cluster-robust MAD difference −501.0 (−563.2 to −423.0) | 4.3, Table 6 | `t50_bootstrap_10k.csv` |
| 19 | Cluster-robust paper-mill difference 61.98 pp (57.80 to 66.59) | 4.6, Table 6 | `t50_bootstrap_10k.csv` |
| 20 | Monte Carlo SE of interval endpoints (0.00/0.58; 0.46/0.84; 0.01/0.05) | Table 6 | `t50_bootstrap_10k.csv` |
| 21 | 9,812 strata on exact publisher; 39 informative (≥5 per arm), holding 8,011 machine records. Publisher-group sensitivity gives 1,859 strata and 46 informative | 4.4 | `t46_matched_dispersion_summary.csv`, `t45_stratum_dispersion.csv` |
| 22 | Largest stratum (2023/2022 Hindawi): MAD 75.6 vs 91.8, n = 4,253 vs 3,215 | 4.4 | `t45_stratum_dispersion.csv` |
| 23 | Median stratum MAD ratio 0.714 (exact publisher); 31 of 39 below 1.0 | 4.4, Table 7 | `t46_matched_dispersion_summary.csv` |
| 24 | 30 of 39 IQR ratios below 1.0 (exact publisher) | 4.4 | `t45_stratum_dispersion.csv` |
| 25 | Pooled within-stratum MAD difference −18.9 days; permutation p < 1e-4; null range −2.5 to 2.2 | 4.4, Table 7 | `t46_matched_dispersion_summary.csv` |
| 26 | Matched 1:1 exact publisher: 5,119 pairs; 4,042 unmatched (56% coverage) | Abstract, 4.4, Table 7, 5.5 | `t46_matched_dispersion_summary.csv` |
| 27 | Matched MAD 175.0 vs 180.2, ratio 0.972; IQR 260 vs 259, ratio 1.004. Publisher-group sensitivity 210.8 vs 217.8, ratio 0.968 | Abstract, 4.4, Table 7, 6 | `t46_matched_dispersion_summary.csv` |
| 28 | Matched paired MAD difference −5.1 days, p = 0.0009. Hindawi removed from BOTH cohorts reverses to +23.5 days, ratio 1.062, 811 pairs, p = 0.0002 | 4.4, 5.1, 6 | `t46_matched_dispersion_summary.csv` |
| 29 | Sensitivity rows: excl. notice A 8,504; notice B 8,782; both 8,125; notice level 8,127; excl. Hindawi from both cohorts 2,752 machine and 51,774 comparison, comparison MAD 823.5, ratio 0.669 | Table 8 | `t30_notice_sensitivity.csv`, `t46_matched_dispersion_summary.csv` |
| 30 | Notice-level median 475 vs 471; delta 0.035, z = 5.10, p = 3.4e-7 | 4.5, Table 8 | `t26_notice_level_summary.csv`, `t30_notice_sensitivity.csv` |

## 4 Co-coding of integrity reasons

| # | Claim as written | Section | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 31 | Paper mill 71.12 (70.18–72.04) vs 9.14 (8.90–9.38); diff 61.98; RR 7.78; z = 144.12 | Abstract, 4.6, Table 9 | `t4_flag_cooccurrence.csv` |
| 32 | Any peer-review concern 93.47 vs 22.06; RR 4.24; z = 136.00 | 4.6, Table 9 | `t4_flag_cooccurrence.csv` |
| 33 | Plagiarism 0.64 vs 10.67 (RR 0.06); duplication 0.22 vs 18.29 (RR 0.01) | 4.6, Table 9 | `t4_flag_cooccurrence.csv` |
| 34 | Indicator patterns reproduce Table 9 exactly (`Paper Mill`, `Peer Review`, `Plagiarism`, `Duplication`) | 3.4 | verified against snapshot; peer-review pattern matches 11,253 + 10,866 + 23 records |
| 35 | MH risk ratio 1.43, cluster-robust 95% CI 1.36–1.52 (notice bootstrap); Greenland–Robins 1.39–1.48 retained for comparison | Abstract, 4.6, Table 10 | `t51_mh_cluster_bootstrap.csv`, `t31_mh_riskratio_ci.csv` |
| 36 | MH odds ratio 2.31, cluster-robust 95% CI 2.07–2.59; 23 contributing strata | 4.6, Table 10 | `t51_mh_cluster_bootstrap.csv`, `t23_mantel_haenszel.csv` |
| 37 | Cochran Q 248.2 on 7 df; 8 strata with all four cells non-zero | Abstract, 4.6, Table 10 | `t31_mh_riskratio_ci.csv` |
| 38 | Year strata: 2021 0 vs 23.80; 2022 0 vs 17.99; 2023 76.80 vs 33.10; 2024 87.79 vs 11.87; 2025 82.48 vs 1.76 | 4.7, Table 11 | `t7_year_stratified_papermill.csv` |
| 39 | Publisher strata: Hindawi 81.15/43.18; IOS 99.62/3.14; Springer 0.49/2.88; IOP 1.65/62.89; Wiley 85.90/8.46; NPG 0/0.99 | 4.7, Table 12 | `t8_publisher_stratified_papermill.csv` |

## 5 Regime cut-points and follow-up

| # | Claim as written | Section | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 40 | 8,194 before / 967 on-or-after 30 Nov 2022; 71.30 vs 69.60 | 4.8, Table 13 | `t21_followup_restricted_regime.csv` |
| 41 | 24-month restriction reverses: 84.32 (Nov 2022), 82.80 (Jul 2023), 77.78 (Jan 2024) | Abstract, 4.8, Table 13 | `t21_followup_restricted_regime.csv` |
| 42 | Strictest cut-point: 0.56% at none, 0.61% at 12 mo (n=165), 0.63% at 18 mo (n=159), n=7 at 24 mo | 4.8, Table 13 | `t21_followup_restricted_regime.csv` |
| 43 | Median lag 136 days for the strictest recent cohort | 4.8 | `t21_followup_restricted_regime.csv` |
| 44 | Falsification cut-point 1 Jun 2022 gives +11.6 pp | 4.8, 5.1 | `t9_regime_definitions.csv` |

## 6 Terminology audit (broadened, 20 patterns)

| # | Claim as written | Section | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 45 | 718 records match any pattern | 4.9, Table 14, ESM 1 | `t48_terminology_broadened.csv` |
| 46 | 21 match a specific generative pattern; 4 machine-attributed | Abstract, 4.9, Table 14, 6 | `t48_terminology_broadened.csv`, `t49_terminology_specific_matches.csv` |
| 47 | Generic "artificial intelligence" 700 records, 315 machine-attributed | 4.9, Table 14, 5.3 | `t48_terminology_broadened.csv` |
| 48 | Eleven of twenty patterns match nothing | 4.9 | `t48_terminology_broadened.csv` |
| 49 | Adjudication of all 21: 18 subject matter, 2 false positive, 1 production; 0 both production and carrying the reason. Four machine-attributed (71694, 70025, 66287, 65129) all subject matter | 4.9, ESM 1b | `ESM_1b_ai_term_adjudication.csv` |
| 50 | Two false positives are gemini surfactants; one AI-figures record lacks the code | 4.9 | `t49_terminology_specific_matches.csv`, manual adjudication |
| 51 | Broadening changed the specific count from 19 to 21 | 4.9 | comparison of `t22_ai_term_matches.csv` with `t48` |

## 7 Citation analysis

| # | Claim as written | Section | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 52 | 9,142 queried; 8,594 paired; 548 unpairable; 143 duplicate DOIs; 8,448 complete pairs | 4.10, Table 15 | `t27_citation_flow.csv`, `t32_citation_attrition.csv` |
| 53 | Baseline citations 6.00 vs 8.93, SMD −0.152; pub year SMD 0.019; publisher match 0.60 | 4.10, Table 15 | `t28_citation_balance.csv` |
| 54 | Initial design: 55.44 vs 64.98, −9.54 pp (−10.98 to −8.10) on 8,407 pairs | Abstract, 4.10, Table 16 | `t33_mcnemar_paired.csv` |
| 55 | Longer windows −9.44, −5.50, −3.06 pp; OA flag 98.39 vs 97.86 (+0.53, p=0.010) | 4.10 | `t33_mcnemar_paired.csv` |
| 56 | Wilcoxon z = −16.10 on 6,403 non-zero differences; mean −0.42; median 0 (0 to 0) | 4.10 | `t34_wilcoxon_paired_rates.csv` |
| 57 | Rematched publisher-exact, deduplicated, publisher from snapshot: 4,747 pairs, SMD 0.000, 65.05 vs 66.34, −1.29 pp (−3.08 to 0.51), p = 0.167 | Abstract, 4.10, Table 16, 6 | `t47_citation_rematched.csv` |
| 58 | Conditional OR 0.937 (0.856–1.026) | 4.10, Table 16 | `t47_citation_rematched.csv` |
| 59 | Rematched publisher-free, deduplicated: 7,698 pairs, −3.81 pp (−5.17 to −2.45), OR 0.814 (0.757–0.877) | 4.10, Table 16 | `t47_citation_rematched.csv` |
| 60 | Stability over 20 assignments: 4,747 eligible pairs in every assignment; mean −1.24, SD 0.09, range −1.45 to −1.05 | 4.10, Table 16 | `t47_citation_rematched.csv` |
| 61 | Baseline bands −29.36 to +12.91 pp (moved to Online Resource 3) | 4.10 | `t38_baseline_stratified.csv` |
| 62 | Caliper subsets −2.53, −1.02, −1.67, −3.68 pp (moved to Online Resource 3) | 4.10 | `t37_caliper_subsets.csv` |

## 8 Provenance, taxonomy and figures

| # | Claim as written | Section | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 63 | Official reason definition quoted verbatim (text generator, randomizing algorithm, generative AI; Mathgen, Scigen, ChatGPT) | 3.2, 3.4 | Retraction Watch user guide Appendix B, retrieved 2026-07-31 |
| 64 | Paper Mill definition quoted verbatim (publisher states, or on a list, or RW identified multiple criteria) | 3.4 | Retraction Watch user guide Appendix B, retrieved 2026-07-31 |
| 65 | No record carries "Randomly Generated Content"; 9,162 carry the current wording across all types, 9,161 among retractions | 3.2 | direct count on snapshot |
| 66 | Snapshot has no coding-date field (only OriginalPaperDate, RetractionDate) | 3.2, 5.5 | snapshot header; Crossref field documentation |
| 67 | Crossref acquired the database September 2023 and made it openly available | 3.1, Data availability | Oransky (2023) |
| 67a | Distribution carries no licence file and states no licence identifier or terms of use | Data availability | direct retrieval of repository LICENSE paths and README, 2026-07-31 |
| 68 | 9,152 of 9,161 carry a valid retraction DOI; 9 are "unavailable"; none blank | 5.5 | `t36_notice_identifier_quality.csv` |
| 69 | Fig. 1 annual series | Fig. 1 | `stats_by_year_ci.csv` via `New-FiguresTiff.ps1` |
| 70 | Fig. 2 box statistics (n, P5, Q1, median, Q3, P95) | Fig. 2 | `fig2_boxstats.csv` via `New-FiguresTiff.ps1` |
| 71 | Fig. 3 forest plot of 46 stratum ratios plus two summary diamonds | Fig. 3 | `t45_stratum_dispersion.csv`, `t46_matched_dispersion_summary.csv` via `New-Fig3Forest.ps1` |

## Corrections applied after independent computational revalidation

An external reviewer compiled the scripts and recomputed the results. Seven implementation or
reporting defects were found and fixed; all are reflected in the rows above.

| # | Defect | Resolution |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Timing strata used six publisher groups plus a pooled "Other", so records from different small publishers could be matched. 14 "Other" strata held 172 machine records. | Primary analysis rerun on the exact publisher string (1,688 distinct). Group specification retained as a labelled sensitivity. |
| 2 | The "excluding Hindawi" test removed that publisher from the machine cohort only, leaving its 5,077 comparison records in place, so the comparison MAD was unchanged at 768.5. | Recomputed with Hindawi removed from both cohorts: comparison MAD 823.5, ratio 0.669, and the matched direction reverses to +23.5 days. |
| 3 | The annual table began at 2010, omitting 3,241 earlier retractions, and "before 2020" was applied to a 2010–2019 denominator. | Pre-2010 row added (0 of 3,241 machine-attributed); the before-2020 denominator is now 27,294. |
| 4 | The bootstrap treated the literal string "unavailable" as a shared notice identifier, pooling 4,071 records into one cluster. | Blank and "unavailable" now yield record-specific singleton clusters; cluster count 57,064 → 61,134 and Table 6 rerun. |
| 5 | The citation rematch did not deduplicate by DOI although the method stated it did. | 62 repeated machine rows dropped; 4,717 → 4,716 pairs and 7,715 → 7,698. Substantive conclusion unchanged. |
| 6 | Online Resource 1b shipped with empty adjudication columns. | All 21 records classified against pre-stated coding rules, with notes, adjudicator and a flag for whether each supports the claim. Single-rater limitation now stated in Section 4.9. |
| 7 | The median of 46 stratum ratios was reported as 0.722; the reported summary said 0.708. | The earlier figure took the upper-middle element of an even-length array rather than averaging the middle two. Exact-publisher median is 0.714. |

Two further reporting defects were corrected: the validation statement claimed agreement
"within 0.0003" where Cochran Q differs by 0.013, and Table 16 reported "4,700 avg" pairs where
the eligible count is fixed at 4,716 and does not vary with the random assignment.

## Reference verification

All 21 reference-list entries carrying a DOI or arXiv identifier were verified against the
issuing registry on 2026-07-31 by `tools\verify_references.py`; results are in
`refs\references_verified_all.csv`.

- **21 of 21 resolved. 0 unresolved.**
- 20 clean matches on first-author surname, year and title.
- 1 flagged, `Santos-d'Amorim 2025`: an apostrophe-encoding artifact in the comparison. The
  registry returns the identical surname. Not an error.
- Two deliberate year choices: Crossref reports issued-year 2012 for Labbé & Labbé (cited 2013)
  and 2023 for Khademizadeh et al. (cited 2024). Both are online-first versus issue-of-record
  years; the manuscript cites the version of record with correct volume, issue and pages.
- Three entries have no DOI and are cited by URL: Crossref (2024) data set, and Retraction Watch
  (2025a, 2025b) user-guide appendices. All three were retrieved and their content confirmed on
  2026-07-31. Oransky (2023) is a dated news post, also retrieved and confirmed.

## Files superseded by this regeneration

| File | Status |
|---|---|
| `refs\stats.md` | **Replaced.** Contained v1 totals (71,476 / 9,165 / 62,311) and v1 statistics that contradict the manuscript. |
| `refs\citations.md` | Superseded by the matched and rematched citation analyses; retained only as a record of the earlier 2,000-DOI sample. |
| `tables\stats_proportions.csv`, `stats_mannwhitney.csv`, `stats_brownforsythe.csv`, `stats_lag_descriptives.csv`, `stats_sensitivity.csv`, `stats_regime_*.csv`, `stats_cutpoint_sensitivity.csv`, `top_*.csv`, `by_year.csv`, `mass_notices.csv`, `cooccurring_reasons.csv` | Superseded by the `runs\ai-retractions-v3\tables` equivalents. Not cited by the manuscript. |
| `refs\references_verified.csv`, `references_verified2.csv` | Superseded by `references_verified_all.csv`, which covers all 21 identifier-bearing entries. |

## Remaining human actions before submission

1. ~~Confirm the licence statement in the repository's own LICENSE file.~~ **Resolved
   2026-07-31.** The repository at `gitlab.com/crossref/retraction-watch-data` contains no
   LICENSE file, and its README states no licence identifier, no copyright notice and no terms
   of use. Checked for CC0, CC BY, Creative Commons, public-domain dedication, copyright,
   attribution and reuse terms; none is present. The Data availability statement therefore
   asserts no licence. It records the factual absence and cites the compilers' own published
   statement that the database was made "completely open and freely available" and that data
   were always supplied free of charge to scholars studying retractions (Oransky, 2023).
2. Funding statement and CRediT contribution statement in the submission interface.
3. Institutional similarity check.
4. Confirm suggested reviewers' current affiliations and institutional e-mail addresses.
5. Written approval of the submitted version from every author.
