Background: The rising number of academic retractions has drawn increasing attention across the academic community. With the availability of large-scale retraction data from Crossref and Retraction Watch, systematic analysis of academic retractions has become feasible.Methods: This study examines all retracted academic publications from the 21st century up to June 4th, 2025. By using BERTopic, Apriori, and data visualization techniques, we've conducted a comprehensive analysis across six subjects with over 6,000 retractions of each subject.Results and conclusions: Our findings detail retraction counts, durations, topic trends, author nationalities, publishers, retraction reasons, and associations among these factors. The overall number of retractions has been continuously rising, with sharp increases in 2010 and 2020 to 2023, and the peak occurring in 2023. The primary reasons for retractions in biomedical studies are paper mills and issues with data and images, with third parties being the main initiators of investigations. In computer science and technology, retractions are mainly due to referencing and attribution issues, as well as unreliable results, with journals, conferences, and publishers often initiating the investigations. We also offer some suggestions that can help monitor research misconduct in academic publications.
When American experimental psychologists began to study activity cycles in the early twentieth century, their research methods and interpretations of experimental results were guided by a commitment to behaviourism and neglected the work of biological rhythms researchers, now called chronobiologists, who approached behaviours from physiological and ecological perspectives, exploring activity and other rhythmic behaviours as governed by innate organic stimuli, biological clocks. The epistemological gap that developed between rhythms researchers and behavioural psychologists can be seen already in the work of Maynard S. Johnson and Curt P. Richter, both working with rodents in the 1920s and 1930s. This gap persisted into the 1960s, when psychologists began to realize that biological clocks help to explain some of their experimental results. This epistemological gap is plain from psychologists' reaction to the 1963 work of Michael Treisman, who was credited 50 years later with discovering the biological clock in humans, despite more than half a century of effort to study rhythms and locate clocks; recognition in the mid-1960s that clock-controlled circadian rhythms were useful in psychology began to close this gap.

