INTRODUCTION: The unprecedented increase in the publication of papers during the COVID-19 pandemic has altered established patterns of scientific communication. In order to publish the results of the research as soon as possible, oversights in the editorial and review process can occur. Due to misconduct or errors, some published papers get retracted. However, once the information is published and it’s publicly available, it can never be completely withdrawn. Retracted papers continue to be used and cited, or they continue their life through papers that cited them before the retraction. In the field of clinical medicine and public health, this can lead to dangerous consequences. AIM: Based on a set of retracted COVID-19 journal papers, we aim to investigate the time between publication and retraction, citations of retracted papers, and most importantly - the reasons for retractions. In the light of the findings we will discuss the opportunities for medical librarians to engage in educating students, physicians, and scientists regarding advanced information literacy skills and scientific publishing in general. METHODS: Retractions of journal papers on SARS-CoV-2/COVID- 19 were identified using the running list of retracted papers available on the Retraction Watch webpage. The time span from manuscript submission till acceptance and the time span between publication and retraction date were investigated. Visibility of retraction notice was investigated on journals' web, in PubMed and in Web of Science Core Collection database. Type of retraction and the reasons for retractions were analyzed, as well as, citations in the WoS CC database. RESULTS: On January 2nd 2022 there were 164 published journal papers on COVID-19 listed in the Retraction Watch webpage. The reasons for retraction vary, and for many they are unclear or even unknown. A lack of data on date of retraction is also noticeable. Visibility of the retraction notice varies on publishers' websites and in bibliographic databases, and a significant number of papers remains unmarked and still available in original form. In addition, our findings show that many of the retracted papers continue to be cited. CONCLUSION: Non-transparent retractions and subsequent use of retracted papers undermine trust in science, both among scientists and the public. Medical libraries play an important role in educating students, physicians and scientists in information literacy and critical thinking skills, and in responsible and ethical use of literature. Central Medical Library, affiliated with the University of Zagreb School of Medicine (UZSM), accomplishes this by participating in various courses at all levels of study programs, and through informal workshops and face-to-face informal consultations. Lessons learned from the analysis of retracted papers can be of great use for these activities. HUMAN TOUCH: All these activities empower medical librarians to connect with their users and patrons, create partnership networks, but also to initiate a dialogue on questionable topics and practices.