COVID-19 retracted publications on retraction watch: A systematic survey of their pre-prints and citations

The importance of rigor in pharmacy research: Challenges and solutions

Scientific rigor broadly refers to upholding basic principles within the conduct of research. Various threats associated with rigor exist in today's research environment, such as the replication crisis, the increasing prevalence of misconduct, and a loss of public trust in regulatory and educational institutions. The purpose of this commentary is to identify problems and solutions associated with research rigor, with a focus on pharmacy research. Problems exist at many levels, including within variable research training/funding, institutional pressures associated with career advancement, and norms associated with academic publishing. However, solutions are possible as methods of harm reduction, including (but not limited to) focused initiatives supporting rigor, team-based approaches to research that include diverse interested parties, and a reimagining of what constitutes value within science. Pharmacists and pharmacy researchers are called upon to uphold research rigor as a professional and ethical responsibility.

Comparing the performance of Retraction Watch Database, PubMed, and Web of Science in identifying retracted publications in medicine

OBJECTIVE

To compare the performance of Retraction Watch Database (RWD), PubMed, and Web of Science (WoS) in identifying retracted publications (RP) in medicine.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study analyzed RP in 131 high-impact journals spanning nine disciplines: anesthesiology, dermatology, general internal medicine, gynecology/obstetrics, neurology, oncology, pediatrics, psychiatry, and radiology. Using RWD, PubMed, and WoS, we retrieved all publications that were retracted in these journals. The total number of RP was defined as the combined count across the three databases. We calculated the proportion of RP retrieved by each database overall, by journal, and by discipline.

RESULTS

A total of 878 RP were identified. Anesthesiology accounted for the most RP (n = 382), followed by general internal medicine (n = 125) and gynecology/obstetrics (n = 116). RWD retrieved the highest number (815; 92.8%), followed by PubMed (758; 86.3%) and WoS (734; 83.6%). Performance varied across disciplines: RWD captured 75-99%, PubMed 52-97%, and WoS 58-96%. RWD outperformed the others in eight of nine disciplines; the exception was gynecology/obstetrics, where PubMed performed better.

CONCLUSION

RWD demonstrated superior coverage compared to PubMed and WoS, though performance varied by discipline. Combining databases offers a more comprehensive approach to retraction identification.

Decatastrophizing research irreproducibility

The reported inability to replicate research findings from the published literature precipitated extensive efforts to identify and correct perceived deficiencies in the execution and reporting of biomedical research. Despite these efforts, quantification of the magnitude of irreproducible research or the effectiveness of associated remediation initiatives, across diverse biomedical disciplines, has made little progress over the last decade. The idea that science is self-correcting has been further challenged in recent years by the proliferation of unverified or fraudulent scientific content generated by predatory journals, paper mills, pre-print server postings, and the inappropriate use of artificial intelligence technologies. The degree to which the field of pharmacology has been negatively impacted by these evolving pressures is unknown. Regardless of these ambiguities, pharmacology societies and their associated journals have championed best practices to enhance the experimental rigor and reporting of pharmacological research. The value of transparent and independent validation of raw data generation and its analysis in basic and clinical research is exemplified by the discovery, development, and approval of Highly Effective Modulator Therapy (HEMT) for Cystic Fibrosis (CF) patients. This provides a didactic counterpoint to concerns regarding the current state of biomedical research. Key features of this important therapeutic advance include objective construction of basic and translational research hypotheses, associated experimental designs, and validation of experimental effect sizes with quantitative alignment to meaningful clinical endpoints with input from the FDA, which enhanced scientific rigor and transparency with real world deliverables for patients in need.

Unraveling retraction dynamics in COVID-19 research: Patterns, reasons, and implications

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, while the world sought solutions, few scholars exploited the situation for personal gains through deceptive studies and manipulated data. This paper presents the extent of 400 retracted COVID-19 papers listed by the RetractionWatch database until the month of February 2024. The primary purpose of the research was to analyze journal quality and retractions trends. Evaluating the journal's quality is vital for stakeholders, as it enables them to effectively address and prevent such incidents and their future repercussions. The present study found that one-fourth of publications were retracted within the first month of their publication, followed by an additional 6% within six months of publication. One third of the retractions originated from Q1 journals, with another significant portion coming from Q2 (29.8%). An analysis of the reasons for retractions indicates that a quarter of retractions were attributed to multiple causes, predominantly associated with publications in Q2 journals, while another quarter were linked to data issues, primarily observed in Q1 publications. Elsevier retracted 31% of papers, with the majority published as Q1, followed by Springer (11.5%), predominantly as Q2. The study also examined author contributions, revealing that 69.3% were male, with females (30.7%) mainly holding middle author positions.

Understanding stigma of dementia during COVID-19: a scoping review

Introduction

Stigma of dementia is one of the greatest challenges for people living with dementia. However, there is little research on the different types of stigma of dementia in the COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose of this scoping review is to synthesize the existing literature on dementia-related stigma (self, public, and structural stigma), during the pandemic.

Methods

Guided by Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review framework and PRISMA guidelines, CINAHL, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Medline, PsycINFO, and Web of Science were searched for English language literature from January 2020 to June 2023. Inclusion criteria consisted of peer-reviewed, original research articles addressing stigma of dementia during the COVID-19 pandemic. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data and steps were taken to ensure rigor.

Results

Fifteen articles met our inclusion criteria. Four primary themes were identified including: 1) COVID-19 stereotypes and assumptions of dementia; 2) human rights issues and deprived dignity; 3) disparate access to health services and supports; and 4) cultural inequities and distrust.

Discussion

The COVID-19 pandemic has contributed to the stigmatization of people living with dementia. Further research is needed to develop, implement, and evaluate interventions targeted towards the different types of dementia-related stigma (including self, public, and structural stigma). Moreover, our findings highlight the need for more collaborative research that prioritizes the lived experience and input of diverse people living with dementia. Research partnerships with diverse people living with dementia are vital to improving future pandemic planning. Only through evidence-informed research and lived experience can we begin to fully address the different types of dementia-related stigma and enhance the quality of life of people living with dementia.

Stigma of dementia during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Dementia-related stigma reduces the quality of life of people living with dementia and their care partners. However, there is a dearth of literature synthesising knowledge on stigma of dementia during the COVID-19 pandemic. This scoping review protocol outlines a methodology that will be used to understand the impact of stigma on people living with dementia during the pandemic. Addressing dementia-related stigma is critical to promoting timely dementia diagnoses and enhancing the quality of life for people living with dementia and their care partners.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This review will follow the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. The review will focus on English-language, peer-reviewed literature published between 13 January 2020 and 30 June 2023. Stigma will be broadly defined according to pre-established components (stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination). We will search six databases including CINAHL, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Medline, PsycINFO and Web of Science. We will also hand-search the reference lists of relevant articles to identify additional manuscripts. Two reviewers will develop the data extraction table, as well as independently conduct the data screening. Any disagreements will be resolved through open discussion between the two researchers, and if necessary, by consulting the full team to achieve consensus. Data synthesis will be conducted using an inductive thematic analysis approach.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This review will be the first to explore the impact of dementia-related stigma during the COVID-19 pandemic. An advisory panel including a person living with dementia and a care partner will be consulted to inform our review's findings and support the data dissemination process. The results of this scoping review will be shared and disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal, presentations at academic conferences, a community workshop and webinars with various stakeholders.