Retractions in orthopaedic research: A systematic review

Prevalence, Characteristics, and Trends in Retracted Spine Literature: 2000-2023

BACKGROUND

Retraction of scientific publications is an important check on scientific misconduct and serves to maintain the integrity of the scientific literature. The present study aims to examine the prevalence, trends, and characteristics of retracted spine literature across basic science and clinical spine literature.

METHODS

Multiple databases were queried for retracted papers relating to spine or spine surgery, between January 2000 and May 2023. Of 112,668 publications initially identified, 125 were ultimately included in the present study following screening by 2 independent reviewers. Journal of origin, reasons for retraction, date of publication, date of retraction, impact factor of journal, countries of research origin, and study design were collected for each included publication.

RESULTS

Clinical studies were the most frequent type of retracted publication (n = 70). The most common reason for retraction was fraud (n = 58), followed by plagiarism (n = 22), and peer review process manipulation (n = 16). Impact factors ranged from 0.3 to 11.1 with a median of 3.75. Average months from publication to retraction across all studies was 37.5 months. The higher the journal impact factor, the longer the amount of time between publication and retraction (P = 0.01). China (n = 63) was the country of origin of more than half of all retracted spine publications.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of retractions has been increasing over the past 23 years, and clinical studies have been the most frequently retracted publication type. Clinicians treating disorders of the spine should be aware of these trends when relying on the clinical literature to inform their practice.

Trials and tribulations of transparency related to inconsistencies between plan and conduct in peer-reviewed physiotherapy publications: A methodology review

RATIONALE

The physiotherapy profession strives to be a leader in providing quality care and strongly recognizes the value of research to guide clinical practice. Adherence to guidelines for research reporting and conduct is a significant step towards high-quality, transparent and reproducible research.

AIM/OBJECTIVE

Assess integrity between planned and conducted methodology in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs) published in physiotherapy journals.

METHODS

Eighteen journals were manually searched for RCTs and SRs published from 1 July 2021 through 31 December 2021. Studies were included if the journal or specific study was indexed in PubMed and published/translated in English. Descriptive statistics determined congruence between preregistration data and publication.

RESULTS

Forty RCTs and 68 SRs were assessed. Forty-three SRs included meta-analysis (MA). Of the 34 registered RCTs, 7 (20.6%) had no discrepancy between the registration and publication. Two trials (5.9%) addressed all discrepancies, 4 (11.8%) addressed some and 21 (61.8%) did not address any discrepancies. Of the 36 registered MAs, 33 (91.7%) had discrepancies between the registration and publication. Two (5.6%) addressed all discrepancies and three (8.3%) had no discrepancies. Eight SRs without MA published information not matching their registration, and none provided justification for the discrepancies.

CONCLUSION

Most RCTs/SRs were registered; the majority had discrepancies between preregistration and publication, potentially influencing the outcomes and interpretations of findings. Journals should require preregistration and compare the submission with the registration information when assessing publication suitability. Readers should be aware of these inconsistencies and their implications when interpreting and translating results into practice.

Review of retracted papers in the field of neurology

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Despite the growing awareness of academic fraud, its prevalence in the field of neurology has not been fully assessed. This review aims to analyze the characteristics of the retracted papers in the field of neurology and the reasons for the retraction to better understand the trends in this area and to assist to avoid retraction incidents.

METHODS

A total of 79 papers were included, which pertained to 22 countries and 64 journals. The marking methods for retracting original papers included watermarks (89.04%), retracted signs in the text (5.48%) and no prompt (5.48%). The median M (interquartile range [IQR]) of citations in retractions in neurology was 7 (41). Studies continued to be cited after retraction with an M (IQR) of 3 (16). The journal impact factor was between 0 and 157.335, with an M (IQR) of 5.127 (3.668). 45.21% and 31.51% papers were mainly published in the first and second quartile journals, respectively. The M (IQR) time elapsed between publication and retraction was 32 (44) months. The reasons for retraction included two major categories, academic misconduct (79.75%) and academic unintentional mistakes (20.25%).

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The number of retractions in neurology has been on the rise over the past decade, with fabricated academic misconduct being the main cause of the retractions. Due to the long time lag between publication and retraction, a number of unreliable findings continue to be cited following retraction. In addition to the requisite standards of academic ethics, augmenting research training and fostering interdisciplinary collaboration are crucial in enhancing research integrity.

The landscape of the characteristics, citations, scientific, technological, and altmetrics impacts of retracted papers in hematology

Retraction is a mechanism for eliminating and correcting serious problems in the scientific literature and increasing awareness among members of the scientific community about unreliable literature. The objectives of this study were to identify the characteristics and reasons for retraction, analyze citations, and describe the scientific, altmetrics, and technological impacts of hematology retracted papers. Retracted papers were searched using the hematology category of the Web of Science database. The search yielded 101 retracted papers in WoS. Statistics methods such as frequency, mean, interquartile range (IQR), and Pearson's Correlation were used for data analysis. The findings showed the retracted papers were published in 28 different hematology journals. The majority of retracted documents were in Article type (n = 81). The mean time interval of the retracted papers from the first publication to retraction was 50.83 months. The largest number of retracted papers belonged to the United States (n = 46). The most frequently reported reason for retraction was misconduct (n = 55). The findings of this study provide a landscape into the characteristics and citations of retracted papers before and after retraction in addition to the scientific, technological, and altmetrics impacts of hematology retracted papers in the scientific community.

Publication retraction in spine surgery: a systematic review

PURPOSE

The number of articles retracted by peer-reviewed journals has increased in recent years. This study systematically reviews retracted publications in the spine surgery literature.

METHODS

A search of PubMed MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Retraction Watch, and the independent websites of 15 spine surgery-related journals from inception to September of 2022 was performed without language restrictions. PRISMA guidelines were followed with title/abstract screening, and full-text screening was conducted independently and in duplicate by two reviewers. Study characteristics and bibliometric information for each publication was extracted.

RESULTS

Of 250 studies collected from the search, 65 met the inclusion criteria. The most common reason for retraction was data error (n = 15, 21.13%), followed by plagiarism (n = 14, 19.72%) and submission to another journal (n = 14, 19.72%). Most studies pertained to degenerative pathologies of the spine (n = 32, 80.00%). Most articles had no indication of retraction in their manuscript (n = 24, 36.92%), while others had a watermark or notice at the beginning of the article. The median number of citations per retracted publication was 10.0 (IQR 3-29), and the median 4-year impact factor of the journals was 5.05 (IQR 3.20-6.50). On multivariable linear regression, the difference in years from publication to retraction (p = 0.0343, β = 6.56, 95% CI 0.50-12.62) and the journal 4-year impact factor (p = 0.0029, β = 7.47, 95% CI 2.66-12.28) were positively associated with the total number of citations per retracted publication. Most articles originated from China (n = 30, 46.15%) followed by the United States (n = 12, 18.46%) and Germany (n = 3, 4.62%). The most common study design was retrospective cohort studies (n = 14, 21.54%).

CONCLUSIONS

The retraction of publications has increased in recent years in spine surgery. Researchers consulting this body of literature should remain vigilant. Institutions and journals should collaborate to increase publication transparency and scientific integrity.

A Systematic Review of Retractions in the Field of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia

OBJECTIVES

No systematic studies on retractions in cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia exist. The aim of this analysis was to identify characteristics and trends of retractions in this field over the past three decades.

DESIGN

A search of the Retraction Watch Database for retracted articles published between 1990 and 2020 in the field of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia was performed.

SETTING

A bibliometric study.

PARTICIPANTS

Five thousand three hundred forty-four retractions with the term "medicine" in the subject code were selected. Retractions of full-length English articles reporting findings in cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia were included.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 63 articles published in 31 journals from January 1990 to August 2020 were retracted. The majority were original articles (n = 60, 95.2%) and retracted for scientific misconduct (n = 50, 79.4%). The percentage of retractions due to misconduct increased from 2010, with a spike in 2011 (n = 26/50, 52.0%), and reached a plateau in 2014. The three most common reasons for retraction were misconduct by the author (n = 31, 49.2%), duplication (n = 12, 19.0%), and errors within the manuscript (n = 11, 17.5%). The median time from publication to retraction was 4.3 years (IQR: 1.7-9.4) and decreased significantly over time (p < 0.001). The median impact factor (IF) of the journals that published retracted articles was 3.5 (IQR 2.0-4.5) and decreased significantly over the study period (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Scientific misconduct represents the most common reason for retraction in cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia. The median time to retraction and journal IF decreased significantly over time. While this is promising, future efforts should be made to screen for falsified data and standardize the processes after retraction to highlight problematic manuscripts.

The continued citation of retracted publications in dentistry

Objective

Publications are retracted for many reasons, but the continued use and citation of retracted publications presents a problem for future research. This study investigated retractions in the dental literature to understand the characteristics of retracted publications, the reasons for their retractions, and the nature and context of their citations after retraction.

Methods

In September 2018, the authors identified retracted dentistry publications using the Retraction Watch database. Citations to those publications were retrieved from Scopus and Web of Science. Characteristics of retracted publications and their citations were collected, including study design, reasons for retraction, and nature of citation (positive, negative, or neutral). We used chi-square tests to determine if there were notable differences between retracted publications that were cited following retraction and those that were not, and if there were relationships between the nature of the citation, the study design of the original publication, and its reason for retraction.

Results

Of the 136 retracted publications, 84 were cited after retraction. When restricted to English language, 81 retracted publications received citations from 685 publications. Only 5.4% of the citations noted the retracted status of the original publication, while 25.3% of citations were neutral and 69.3% were positive. Animal studies were more likely to be uncited after retraction, while in vitro studies and randomized controlled trials were more likely to be cited. Retracted publications that were cited negatively were more likely to have been retracted due to scientific distortion than those that were cited positively or neutrally. Retracted publications that were cited negatively were also more likely to be observational studies than those cited positively or neutrally.

Conclusion

Retracted publications in dentistry are continually cited positively following their retraction, regardless of their study designs or reasons for retraction. This indicates that the continued citation of retracted publications in this field cannot be isolated to certain research methods or misconduct but is, instead, a more widespread issue.

Incidence and missed diagnosis risk of occult posterior malleolar fractures associated with the tibial shaft fractures: a systematic review

Background

Tibial shaft fractures (TSFs) combined with occult posterior malleolar fractures (PMFs) are becoming widely recognized in the field of orthopedics. The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical incidence, missed diagnosis rate, and treatment strategies of this combined injury.

Methods

PubMed, Cochrane, and MEDLINE Ovid databases were searched for articles of English language from 1988 to 2020, identifying 1549 papers.

Results

Twenty-one of the 1278 identified studies were eligible for inclusion. Each study reported on the incidence of this combined injury, and 12 studies documented the missed diagnosis rate. Seventeen studies reported surgical intervention strategies for PMFs. In the present review, PMFs frequently occurred in spiral TSFs (70%), especially distal third spiral TSFs (70.4%), based on CT scans or additional MRI. Based on the original X-ray detection, approximately 50% of PMFs were missed in patients with a combined injury. In addition, the treatment strategies for PMFs were inconsistent. Most studies (11/17) believe that specific surgical management needs to be developed based on the fragment size, displacement, and stability of the PMF.

Conclusions

For patients with TSFs, spiral TSFs, especially distal third spiral TSFs, are closely related to PMFs and are often not sufficiently diagnosed by X-ray alone. Advanced CT and MRI examinations can significantly reduce the missed diagnosis rate of occult PMFs. According to available literature, the treatment strategy for PMFs associated with TSFs is questionable without convincing evidence of benefit.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13018-021-02502-6.

An Estimation of the Retraction Gap Across Neurosurgery-A Crevice or a Chasm?

BACKGROUND

The incidence of retractions has been increasing steadily, in direct proportion to the volume of scientific literature. Retraction of published articles depends on the visibility of journals and on postpublication scrutiny of published articles by peers. The possibility thus exists that not all compromised ("retractable") articles are detected and retracted from the less-visible journals. The proportion of "retractable" articles and its converse, the proportion of published articles in each journal that are likely to be "true" (PTP), have not been estimated hitherto.

METHODS

Three journal sets were created: pure neurosurgery journals (NS-P), the neurosurgery component of multidisciplinary journals (NS-MD), and high-impact clinical journals (HICJs). We described a new metric (the retraction gap [RGap]), defined as the proportion of retractable articles in journals that have not been retracted. We computed the expected number of retractable articles, RGap, and PTP for each journal, and compared these metrics across groups.

RESULTS

Fifty-three NS-P journals, 10 NS-MD journals, and 63 HICJs were included in the analysis. The estimated number of retractable articles was 31 times the actual number of retractions in NS-P journals, 6 times higher in the NS-MD journals, and 26 times higher for the HICJs. The RGap was 96.7% for the NS-P group, 83.5% for the NS-MD group, and 96.2% for the HICJs. The PTP was 99.3% in the NS-P group, 99.2% in the NS-MD group, and 98.6% in the HICJs.

CONCLUSIONS

Neurosurgery as a discipline had a higher RGap but also a higher PTP than the other 2 groups.

An analysis of retractions in neurosurgery and allied clinical and basic science specialties

Background

As the volume of scientific publications increases, the rate of retraction of published papers is also likely to increase. In the present study, we report the characteristics of retracted papers from clinical neurosurgery and allied clinical and basic science specialties.

Methods

Retracted papers were identified using two separate search strategies on PubMed. Attributes of the retracted papers were collected from PubMed and the Retraction Watch database. The reasons for retraction were analyzed. The factors that correlated with time to retraction were identified. Detailed citation analysis for the retracted papers was performed. The retraction rates for neurosurgery journals were computed.

Results

A total of 191 retractions were identified; 55% pertained to clinical neurosurgery. The most common reasons for retraction were plagiarism, duplication, and compromised peer review. The countries associated with the highest number of retractions were China, USA, and Japan. The full text of the retraction notice was not available for 11% of the papers. A median of 50% of all citations received by the papers occurred after retraction. The factors that correlated with a longer time to retraction included basic science category, the number of collaborating departments, and the H-index of the journal. The overall rate of retractions in neurosurgery journals was 0.037%.

Conclusions

The retraction notice needs to be freely available on all search engines. Plagiarism checks and reference checks prior to publication of papers (to ensure no retracted papers have been cited) must be mandatory. Mandatory data deposition would help overcome issues with data and results.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00701-020-04615-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

For how long and with what relevance do genetics articles retracted due to research misconduct remain active in the scientific literature

We aimed to quantify the number of pre- and post-retraction citations obtained by genetics articles retracted due to research misconduct. All retraction notices available in the Retraction Watch database for genetics articles published in 1970-2016 were assessed. The reasons for retraction were fabrication/falsification and plagiarism. The endpoints were the number of citations of retracted articles and when and how journals reported on retractions and whether this was published on PubMed.Four hundred and sixty retracted genetics articles were cited 34,487 times; 7,945 (23%) were post-retraction citations. Median time to retraction and time to last citation were 3.2 and 3 years, respectively. Most (96%) had a PubMed retraction notice, One percent of these were totally removed from journal websites altogether, and 4% had no information available on either the online or PDF versions. Ninety percent of citations were from articles retracted due to falsification/fabrication. The percentage of post-retraction citations was significantly higher in the case of plagiarism (42%) than in the case of fabrication/falsification (21.5%) (p<0.001). Median time to retraction was shorter (1.3 years) in the case of plagiarism than for fabrication/falsification (4.8 years, p<0.001). The retraction was more frequently reported in the PDFs (70%) for the fabrication/falsification cases than for the plagiarism cases (43%, p<0.001). The highest rate of retracted papers due to falsification/fabrication was among authors in the USA, and the highest rate for plagiarism was in China.Although most retractions were appropriately handled by journals, the gravest issue was that median time to retraction for articles retracted for falsification/fabrication was nearly 5 years, earning close to 6800 post-retraction citations. Journals should implement processes to speed-up the retraction process that will help to minimize post-retraction citations.

Post retraction citations among manuscripts reporting a radiology-imaging diagnostic method

Our study aimed to evaluate the trends of post retraction citations of articles reporting a radiology-imaging diagnostic method and to find if a different pattern exists between manuscripts reporting an ultrasound method and those reporting other radiology diagnostic methods. This study reviewed retractions stored in PubMed on the subject of radiology-imaging diagnosis to identify the motivation, time from publication to retraction, and citations before and after retraction. The PubMed database was searched on June 2017 to retrieve the retracted articles, and the Scopus database was screened to identify the post-retraction citations. The full text was screened to see the type of post-retraction citation (positive/negative) and whether the cited article appears or not as retracted. One hundred and two retractions were identified, representing 3.5% of the retracted articles indexed by PubMed, out of which 54 were included in the analysis. Half of the articles were retracted in the first 24 months after publication, and the number of post retraction citations was higher than the number of citations before retraction in 30 out of 54 cases (US methods: 9/20, other diagnostic methods 21/34, P-value = 0.2312). The plagiarism was the most common reason for retraction (31%), followed by repetitive publication (26%), and errors in data/manuscript (24%). In less than 2% of cases, the retracted articles appear as retracted in the text or reference list, while the negative citation is observed in 4.84% among manuscripts reporting an US diagnostic method and 0.32% among manuscripts reporting a diagnostic method other than US (P-value = 0.0004). No significant differences were observed when post retraction weighted citation index (WCI, no. of citations weighted by citation window) was compared to WCI prior retraction (P-value = 0.5972). In light of the reported results, we enumerated some recommendations that could potentially minimize the referral to retracted studies as valid.

Envisioning data sharing for the biocomputing community

The scientific community is facing a revolution in several aspects of its modus operandi, ranging from the way science is done-data production, collection, analysis-to the way it is communicated and made available to the public, be that an academic audience or a general one. These changes have been largely determined by two key players: the big data revolution or, less triumphantly, the impressive increase in computational power and data storage capacity; and the accelerating paradigm switch in science publication, with people and policies increasingly pushing towards open access frameworks. All these factors prompt the undertaking of initiatives oriented to maximize the effectiveness of the computational efforts carried out worldwide. Taking the moves from these observations, we here propose a coordinated initiative, focusing on the computational biophysics and biochemistry community but general and flexible in its defining characteristics, which aims at addressing the growing necessity of collecting, rationalizing, sharing and exploiting the data produced in this scientific environment.

Can the similarity index predict the causes of retractions in high-impact anesthesia journals? A bibliometric analysis

Background:

The overall similarity index (OSI) and highest similarity scores (HSSs) from a single source might help to predict the potential reasons for the retraction from the anesthesia journals.

Methods:

Retracted publications, from five highest impact anesthesia journals, were retrieved from the MEDLINE and journal archives and analyzed using a plagiarism detection software (iThenticate) and manually verified for citation characteristics, OSI, HSS, and the presence, extent, and location of the duplicate text. The validity of the OSI including and excluding quotations and references and the HSS in predicting the potential reasons for retraction were tested using the receiver operating characteristic curves.

Results:

Of the total 138 retracted original and corresponding articles identified, 131 articles were analyzed. Most of them had the HSS more than 40% arising from a single source. Extensive degree of plagiarism (OSI score >35%) was identified through the main text of all analyzed retracted articles. The areas under the curves indicate that the OSI including and excluding quotations and bibliography and the HSS had reasonable ability to predict plagiarism and fabrication with a perfect sensitivity rate and low specificity but were weaker at distinguishing ethical misconduct or inconsistent or erroneous contents.

Conclusions:

The study highlights the presence of significant plagiarism in the retracted anesthesia publications irrespective to the reasons for retraction. The high OSI and the HSS could be useful tools to identify the potential manuscripts with high risks for plagiarism and fabrication.

Predatory Publishing in Orthopaedic Research

BACKGROUND

The open-access model has changed the landscape of academic publishing over the last 20 years. An unfortunate consequence has been the advent of predatory publishing, which exploits the open-access model for monetary gain by collecting publishing fees from authors under the pretense of being a legitimate publication while providing little-to-no peer review. This study aims to investigate the predatory publishing phenomenon in orthopaedic literature.

METHODS

We searched Beall's List of Predatory Journals and Publishers and another list of predatory journals for journal titles that are possibly related to orthopaedics. We then searched their web sites for the following information: total number of articles published, journal country of origin, author country of origin, article processing charge (APC), quoted review time, and location of the listed headquarters. We also reported the article quality of a random sample of these journals. We consulted InCites Journal Citation Reports to determine the number of nonpredatory orthopaedic publications that are indexed, and we manually searched a random sample of these legitimate journals for Beall's criteria. Additionally, we searched the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and PubMed databases for any possible predatory journal titles.

RESULTS

We found 104 suspected predatory publishers, representing 225 possible predatory journals. One journal was indexed in the DOAJ, and 20 were indexed in PubMed. Review time was not identified for 56.2% of the journals, and 36.5% quoted a review time of <1 month. Nearly half of the listed addresses of the publishers were either unsearchable or led to residential or empty lots. Eighty-two legitimate journals were identified. The median APC was $420 for predatory journals and $2,900 for legitimate journals. We found that a random sample of the legitimate journals published studies with higher reporting standards, but a few also contained 1 criterion that is found on Beall's list.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the scope of orthopaedic predatory publishing. Possibly predatory journals outnumber legitimate orthopaedic journals. Orthopaedic surgeons should be aware of the suspected predatory journals and consult available online tools to identify them because distinguishing them from legitimate journals can be a challenge.

Updated Editorial Guidance for Quality and Reliability of Research Output

Over the past few years, updated editorial policy statements of several associations have provided a platform for improving the quality of scientific research and publishing. The updates have particularly pointed to the need for following research reporting standards, authorship and contributorship regulations, implementing digital tools for the identification and crediting academic contributors, and moving towards optimal ethical open-access models. This article overviews some of the recent editorial policy statements of global editorial associations and reflects on the role of the regional counterparts in advancing scholarly publishing. One of the globally promoted documents is the Recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Its latest versions contain statements on proper research reporting, reviewing, editing, and publishing. Points on ethical target journals and 'predatory' sources are also available. This year, in a move to update its editorial policy, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) released the Core Practices, comprehensively reflecting on the major issues in publication ethics. Updated joint statements of medical writers associations are also available to implement transparent policy on contributorship in sponsor-supported research projects and related reports. Several suggestions are put forward to improve global editorial statements on online profiling, crediting, and referencing. It is also highlighted that knowledge and implementation of updated editorial guidance is essential for editors' good standing.

Truths, lies, and statistics

Distribution of valuable research discoveries are needed for the continual advancement of patient care. Publication and subsequent reliance of false study results would be detrimental for patient care. Unfortunately, research misconduct may originate from many sources. While there is evidence of ongoing research misconduct in all it's forms, it is challenging to identify the actual occurrence of research misconduct, which is especially true for misconduct in clinical trials. Research misconduct is challenging to measure and there are few studies reporting the prevalence or underlying causes of research misconduct among biomedical researchers. Reported prevalence estimates of misconduct are probably underestimates, and range from 0.3% to 4.9%. There have been efforts to measure the prevalence of research misconduct; however, the relatively few published studies are not freely comparable because of varying characterizations of research misconduct and the methods used for data collection. There are some signs which may point to an increased possibility of research misconduct, however there is a need for continued self-policing by biomedical researchers. There are existing resources to assist in ensuring appropriate statistical methods and preventing other types of research fraud. These included the "Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature", also known as the SAMPL guidelines, which help scientists determine the appropriate method of reporting various statistical methods; the "Strengthening Analytical Thinking for Observational Studies", or the STRATOS, which emphases on execution and interpretation of results; and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which was created in 1997 to deliver guidance about publication ethics. COPE has a sequence of views and strategies grounded in the values of honesty and accuracy.