Retractions are the primary mechanism for correcting the scholarly record, yet publishers differ markedly in how they use them. We present a bibliometric analysis of 46,087 retractions across 10 major publishers using data from the Retraction Watch database (1997-2026), examining retraction rates, reasons, temporal trends, and geographic distributions, among other dimensions. Normalized retraction rates vary by two orders of magnitude, from Elsevier's 3.97 per 10,000 publications to Hindawi's 320.02. China-affiliated authors account for the largest share of retractions at every publisher. Retraction lags and reason profiles also vary widely across publishers. Among the ten publishers, ACM is an outlier in its retraction profile. ACM's normalized rate is mid-range (5.65), yet 98.3% of its 354 retractions are related to one incident. Seven of the ten most common global retraction reasons (including misconduct, plagiarism, and data concerns) are entirely absent from ACM's record. ACM's first retraction dates to 2020, despite a catalog dating to 1997. ACM self-describes its retraction threshold as "extremely high." We discuss this threshold in relation to the COPE retraction guidelines and the implications of ACM's non-public dark archive of removed works.

翻译：撤稿是修正学术记录的主要机制，但不同出版商在使用该机制的方式上存在显著差异。我们基于撤稿观察数据库（1997-2026）的数据，对10家主要出版商的46,087篇撤稿进行了文献计量分析，从撤稿率、撤稿原因、时间趋势和地域分布等多个维度展开研究。标准化撤稿率存在两个数量级的差异，从爱思唯尔的每万篇出版物3.97次到Hindawi的320.02次不等。在所有出版商中，中国籍作者贡献的撤稿数量占比最高。撤稿延迟时间和撤稿原因分布在不同出版商间也存在广泛差异。在这十家出版商中，ACM的撤稿特征尤为特殊。其标准化撤稿率处于中等水平（5.65），但其354篇撤稿中有98.3%与单一事件相关。全球最常见的十大撤稿原因（包括学术不端、剽窃和数据问题等）中有七项在ACM的记录中完全不存在。尽管ACM的出版物目录可追溯至1997年，但其首次撤稿发生在2020年。ACM自称其撤稿门槛"极高"。我们结合COPE撤稿指南探讨了这一门槛，并分析了ACM未公开的已撤作品暗藏档案所产生的影响。