Analysis of Retractions in BIM and Construction Research: Two Mechanisms of Failure

Retractions show how a discipline deals with its own errors, yet the construction literature has not been examined from this perspective. This study analyzed the complete Retraction Watch database distributed through Crossref (72,389 records) and extracted 1385 records assigned to the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) sector, defined by the subject categories of the database and a manually compiled list of journals and conference series. Publication channel, reasons for retraction, time to retraction, and geography were examined. Retractions in construction do not form a single phenomenon. Conference papers account for 41.2% of the set; they are retracted quickly (median 35 days), in entire volumes, and 77.1% of their notices give no specific reason. Journal articles are retracted after a median of 529 days, and their notices state specific reasons, including paper mills (19.8%) and computer-generated content (14.5%). A title search for building information modeling (BIM) returned 52 records concentrated in a single publisher and a single country of affiliation. Systematic reviews in construction should verify the status of conference papers, the channel most affected by retractions, while notices without a justification prevent the discipline from distinguishing error from misconduct and learning from its own retractions.