The thin ret(raction) line: biomedical journal responses to incorrect non-targeting nucleotide sequence reagents in human gene knockdown publications

Verification of nucleotide sequence reagent identities in original publications in high impact factor cancer research journals

Human gene research studies that describe wrongly identified nucleotide sequence reagents have been mostly identified in journals of low to moderate impact factor, where unreliable findings could be considered to have limited influence on future research. This study examined whether papers describing wrongly identified nucleotide sequences are also published in high-impact-factor cancer research journals. We manually verified nucleotide sequence identities in original Molecular Cancer articles published in 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020, including nucleotide sequence reagents that were claimed to target circRNAs. Using keywords identified in some 2018 and 2020 Molecular Cancer papers, we also verified nucleotide sequence identities in 2020 Oncogene papers that studied miRNA(s) and/or circRNA(s). Overall, 3.8% (251/6647) and 4.0% (47/1165) nucleotide sequences that were verified in Molecular Cancer and Oncogene papers, respectively, were found to be wrongly identified. Wrongly identified nucleotide sequences were distributed across 18% (91/500) original Molecular Cancer papers, including 38% (31/82) Molecular Cancer papers from 2020, and 40% (21/52) selected Oncogene papers from 2020. Original papers with wrongly identified nucleotide sequences were therefore unexpectedly frequent in two high-impact-factor cancer research journals, highlighting the risks of employing journal impact factors or citations as proxies for research quality.

Protection of the human gene research literature from contract cheating organizations known as research paper mills

Human gene research generates new biology insights with translational potential, yet few studies have considered the health of the human gene literature. The accessibility of human genes for targeted research, combined with unreasonable publication pressures and recent developments in scholarly publishing, may have created a market for low-quality or fraudulent human gene research articles, including articles produced by contract cheating organizations known as paper mills. This review summarises the evidence that paper mills contribute to the human gene research literature at scale and outlines why targeted gene research may be particularly vulnerable to systematic research fraud. To raise awareness of targeted gene research from paper mills, we highlight features of problematic manuscripts and publications that can be detected by gene researchers and/or journal staff. As improved awareness and detection could drive the further evolution of paper mill-supported publications, we also propose changes to academic publishing to more effectively deter and correct problematic publications at scale. In summary, the threat of paper mill-supported gene research highlights the need for all researchers to approach the literature with a more critical mindset, and demand publications that are underpinned by plausible research justifications, rigorous experiments and fully transparent reporting.

Experts identified warning signs of fraudulent research: a qualitative study to inform a screening tool

OBJECTIVE

Fraudulent research exists but can be difficult to spot. Made-up studies and results can affect systematic reviews and clinical guidelines, causing harm through incorrect treatments and practices. Our aim was to explore indicators of research fraud that could be included in a screening tool to identify potentially problematic studies warranting a closer scrutiny.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a qualitative international interview study, purposively recruiting participants with experience and/or expertise in research integrity, systematic reviews, biomedical publishing, or whistle-blowing research fraud. We used a thematic analysis to identify major concepts and ideas.

RESULTS

We contacted 49 potential participants and interviewed 30 from 12 countries. Participants described research fraud as a growing concern, with a lack of widely accessible resources or education to assist in flagging problematic studies. They discussed early warning signs that could be contained in a screening tool for use either prepublication or postpublication. We did not speak to participants from indexing services, information software/analytics companies, or the public. Our suggested screening tools are empirically derived but are preliminary and not validated.

CONCLUSION

A practical tool of early warning signs for research fraud would be useful for peer reviewers, editors, publishers, and systematic reviewers.

A Synthesis of the Formats for Correcting Erroneous and Fraudulent Academic Literature, and Associated Challenges

Academic publishing is undergoing a highly transformative process, and many established rules and value systems that are in place, such as traditional peer review (TPR) and preprints, are facing unprecedented challenges, including as a result of post-publication peer review. The integrity and validity of the academic literature continue to rely naively on blind trust, while TPR and preprints continue to fail to effectively screen out errors, fraud, and misconduct. Imperfect TPR invariably results in imperfect papers that have passed through varying levels of rigor of screening and validation. If errors or misconduct were not detected during TPR's editorial screening, but are detected at the post-publication stage, an opportunity is created to correct the academic record. Currently, the most common forms of correcting the academic literature are errata, corrigenda, expressions of concern, and retractions or withdrawals. Some additional measures to correct the literature have emerged, including manuscript versioning, amendments, partial retractions and retract and replace. Preprints can also be corrected if their version is updated. This paper discusses the risks, benefits and limitations of these forms of correcting the academic literature.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10838-022-09607-4.

Identification of human gene research articles with wrongly identified nucleotide sequences

Nucleotide sequence reagents underpin molecular techniques that have been applied across hundreds of thousands of publications. We have previously reported wrongly identified nucleotide sequence reagents in human research publications and described a semi-automated screening tool Seek & Blastn to fact-check their claimed status. We applied Seek & Blastn to screen >11,700 publications across five literature corpora, including all original publications in Gene from 2007 to 2018 and all original open-access publications in Oncology Reports from 2014 to 2018. After manually checking Seek & Blastn outputs for >3,400 human research articles, we identified 712 articles across 78 journals that described at least one wrongly identified nucleotide sequence. Verifying the claimed identities of >13,700 sequences highlighted 1,535 wrongly identified sequences, most of which were claimed targeting reagents for the analysis of 365 human protein-coding genes and 120 non-coding RNAs. The 712 problematic articles have received >17,000 citations, including citations by human clinical trials. Given our estimate that approximately one-quarter of problematic articles may misinform the future development of human therapies, urgent measures are required to address unreliable gene research articles.