# \[Inderscience\] Retracted articles not followed by a Crossref record update

**URL:** <https://community.crossref.org/t/inderscience-retracted-articles-not-followed-by-a-crossref-record-update/15864>\
**Category:** Metadata quality improvements\
**Tags:** update-doi, metadata-quality, retractions\
**Created:** [26 May 2026 09:26 UTC](https://community.crossref.org/t/inderscience-retracted-articles-not-followed-by-a-crossref-record-update/15864 "2026-05-26T09:26:02Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gcabanac](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/community.crossref.org/gcabanac/32/2217_2.png) [@gcabanac](https://community.crossref.org/u/gcabanac)\
**Post date:** [26 May 2026 09:26 UTC](https://community.crossref.org/t/inderscience-retracted-articles-not-followed-by-a-crossref-record-update/15864/1 "2026-05-26T09:26:02Z")

</div>

Inderscience retracted articles, prefixed their titles with [‘RETRACTED ARTICLE’](https://www.inderscienceonline.com/action/doSearch?KeywordRaw=&field1=Title&text1=retracted&publication=&Ppub=&sortBy=EpubDate_asc) but apparently didn’t update the associated Crossref records.

Example of [https://doi.org/10.1504/IJISM.2007.012630](https://doi.org/10.1504/IJISM.2007.012630) :

 ![image](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/uploads/crossref/original/2X/e/e3a3a73da21de997435f2d27b2edc64d94afaa4c.png)

Record as per the [Crossref API](https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1504/IJISM.2007.012630):

 ![image](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/uploads/crossref/original/2X/2/2dae84d89e6923111c53a4ed7505493a2e0e73ec.png)

Could someone liaise with Inderscience and help them push the title updates to Crossref, please?

Thanks.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gcabanac](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/community.crossref.org/gcabanac/32/2217_2.png) [@gcabanac](https://community.crossref.org/u/gcabanac)\
**Post date:** [26 May 2026 09:45 UTC](https://community.crossref.org/t/inderscience-retracted-articles-not-followed-by-a-crossref-record-update/15864/2 "2026-05-26T09:45:35Z")

</div>

Note: The [Retraction Watch database](https://retractiondatabase.org) shows no retractions for this publisher, I’m paging them about this issue.

Updating the Crossref records would increase the discoverability of the retractions via the Crossref API.

 ![image](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/uploads/crossref/original/2X/0/03a3e276c1149e53be25cabbc1efed91a1426afb.png)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![LuciaG](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/community.crossref.org/luciag/32/2148_2.png) [@LuciaG](https://community.crossref.org/u/LuciaG)\
**Post date:** [2 June 2026 01:03 UTC](https://community.crossref.org/t/inderscience-retracted-articles-not-followed-by-a-crossref-record-update/15864/4 "2026-06-02T01:03:57Z")

</div>

Hi @gcabanac

Thank you for flagging this and bringing it to our attention.

I have reached out to Inderscience and will let you know as soon as I hear back from them/it gets resolved.

All the best,

Lucia

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![LuciaG](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/community.crossref.org/luciag/32/2148_2.png) [@LuciaG](https://community.crossref.org/u/LuciaG)\
**Post date:** [25 June 2026 02:29 UTC](https://community.crossref.org/t/inderscience-retracted-articles-not-followed-by-a-crossref-record-update/15864/5 "2026-06-25T02:29:29Z")

</div>

Hi @gcabanac

The publisher has updated all the associated records to reflect the retractions.

Thanks for your patience on this!

All the best,