Compiled empirical error-rate figures the paper assembles from the literature (not its own data collection):
| quantity | value | cited source |
|---|---|---|
| raw MEDLINE retraction rate | 6.3e-5 | Cokol, Iossifov et al. 2007 |
| modeled retraction rate under top-tier scrutiny | 1e-3 – 1e-2 | Cokol, Iossifov et al. 2007 |
| flawed statistical results in Nature/BMJ sample | ~11% | García-Berthou & Alcaraz 2004 |
| hospital drug-dose error rate | ~1–2% of administrations | Prot 2005; Stubbs 2006; Walsh 2008 |
| spreadsheet audits with errors | ~88% | Panko 1998 |
The paper notes retraction is only triggered by nontrivial, immediately noticeable flaws, so the retraction rate lower-bounds the serious-flaw rate; 62% of 1982-2002 retractions were unintentional error rather than misconduct (Nath et al. 2006).