Changing ethical standards in scientific publication

Retracted Covid-19 articles: significantly more cited than other articles within their journal of origin

With the expansion of research volume, coinciding with the age of the internet, the retraction of published papers from scientific journals has become crucial to preserving scientific integrity. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, both public and professional interest in scientific literature has grown as people attempt to educate themselves on the virus. The Retraction Watch Database COVID-19 blog was accessed in June and November of 2022 and analyzed to ensure articles met inclusion criteria. Articles were then accessed on Google Scholar and the Scopus database to find number of citations and SJR/CiteScore. The average SJR and CiteScore for a journal that published one of the articles was 1.531 and 7.3 respectively. The retracted articles were cited an average of 44.8 times, which was significantly higher than the average CiteScore (p = 0.01). Between June and November, retracted COVID-19 articles gained a total of 728 new citations, presence of "withdrawn" or "retracted" before article title did not affect citation rates. COPE guidelines for retraction statements were not met for 32% of articles. We believe retracted COVID-19 publications may have been more likely to include bold claims that garnered a disproportionately high amount of attention within the scientific community. Additionally, we found many journals were not forthright with explanations for why articles had been retracted. Retractions could be a tool used to add to the scientific discourse, but currently we are only getting half the data, the what and not the why.

Publication bias in oral and maxillofacial surgery journals: an observation on published controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Publication bias (PB) diminishes the full distribution of research, distorts and discredits the scientific record, and thus compromises evidence-based practice. The objective of this study was to analyse published controlled trials with regard to PB in leading oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS) journals.

METHODS

All controlled trials published in the International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, and British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery in 2008 were analysed for a primary outcome, country of authors, sample size, gender of the first author, funding source and location of the study.

RESULTS

Of 952 published articles, 53 controlled trials (5.7%) were identified. The OMS journals preferentially published controlled trials with a positive outcome (77.4%) and from high-income countries (73.6%). Single-centred trials (86.8%) with low sample size (n<100; 69.8%) were published more frequently. The majority of the first authors were male (75.5%). Funding source disclosure was missing in most studies (73.6%) [corrected].

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest the possible existence of PB in the OMS literature. Hence, it should be borne in mind that the published articles may not be representative of all scientific works, especially when systematic reviews and meta-analyses are conducted or read. In the meantime, journals should establish measures to eliminate PB to uphold scientific integrity. However, this study was an observation based on the published articles. An analysis of all submitted manuscripts would provide more accurate estimates of PB. Ethical considerations on PB are also discussed.