Inconsistent and incomplete retraction of published research: A cross-sectional study on Covid-19 retractions and recommendations to mitigate risks for research, policy and practice

Characteristics of retracted articles in ophthalmology

The retraction of publications is a crucial aspect of scientific integrity; it aims to correct the literature and alert scholars and the general public by identifying and labelling articles that contain erroneous data, unreliable findings, or flawed conclusions. Identifying and characterizing retracted articles within the scientific literature is thus very important. The aims of this article were to characterize retracted articles in the ophthalmological literature. One hundred and fifty-one retracted articles published between 1966 and 2023 were retrieved. The number of retracted articles showed an upward trend from 2020 onwards. Ocular oncology (n = 37, 24.5 %) was the most frequently represented subspeciality in the retracted articles, despite retina and uveitis being the most published. The most frequent reason for retraction was fake data (n = 62, 38 %). The labelling of retracted articles on some websites was unsatisfactory, especially on the free-access illegal platform Sci-Hub. On the other hand, platforms such as Dimensions, Scite and Retraction Watch exhibit promising accuracy. Improving the labelling of retractions is needed to reduce the citation of articles after they have been retracted. Solutions to reach this goal are discussed in this article.

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.

An analysis of retracted studies in cardiology in the last two decades

Background: The aim of this study is to analyze retracted studies in cardiovascular field.Methodology: PubMed and Embase databases were used to identify retracted publications from 2002 to 2022. Various characteristics of articles were retrieved, and an analysis was performed using R software.Results: We finally included 979 articles. Authors from China have the highest number of retracted studies (35.5%), followed by the USA (22.1%), and Japan (4%). The most common causes of retraction are mistakes and honest errors (24.5%) and duplicate data (17.7%). From 2002 to 2022, there has been a significant increase in retracted studies and a decrease in the impact factor of journals, number of citations, and time to retraction.Conclusion: The trend of retracting publications in cardiology is increasing.

Analysis of the Types of Retracted COVID-19 Articles Published in PubMed-Listed Journals

OBJECTIVES

Periodically, medical publications are retracted. The reasons vary from minor situations, such as author attributions, which do not undermine the validity of the data or the analysis in the article, to serious reasons, such as fraud. Understanding the reasons for retraction can provide important information for clinicians, educators, researchers, journals, and editorial boards.

METHODS

The PubMed database was searched using the term "COVID-19" (coronavirus disease 2019) and the term limitation "retracted publication." The characteristics of the journals with retracted articles, the types of article, and the reasons for retraction were analyzed.

RESULTS

This search recovered 196 articles that had been retracted. These retractions were published in 179 different journals; 14 journals had >1 retracted article. The mean impact factor of these journals was 8.4, with a range of 0.32-168.9. The most frequent reasons for retractions were duplicate publication, concerns about data validity and analysis, concerns about peer review, author request, and the lack of permission or ethical violation. There were significant differences between the types of article and the reasons for retraction but no consistent pattern. A more detailed analysis of two particular retractions demonstrates the complexity and the effort required to make decisions about article retractions.

CONCLUSIONS

The retraction of published articles presents a significant challenge to journals, editorial boards, peer reviewers, and authors. This process has the potential to provide important benefits; it also has the potential to undermine confidence in both research and the editorial process.

Reducing the residue of retractions in evidence synthesis: ways to minimise inappropriate citation and use of retracted data

The incorporation of publications that have been retracted is a risk in reliable evidence synthesis. Retraction is an important mechanism for correcting the literature and protecting its integrity. Within the medical literature, the continued citation of retracted publications occurs for a variety of reasons. Recent evidence suggests that systematic reviews and meta-analyses often unwittingly cite retracted publications which, at least in some cases, may significantly impact quantitative effect estimates in meta-analyses. There is strong evidence that authors of systematic reviews and meta-analyses may be unaware of the retracted status of publications and treat them as if they are not retracted. These problems are difficult to address for several reasons: identifying retracted publications is important but logistically challenging; publications may be retracted while a review is in preparation or in press and problems with a publication may also be discovered after the evidence synthesis is published. We propose a set of concrete actions that stakeholders (eg, scientists, peer-reviewers, journal editors) might take in the near-term, and that research funders, citation management systems, and databases and search engines might take in the longer term to limit the impact of retracted primary studies on evidence syntheses.

Does haste make waste? Prevalence and types of errors reported after publication of studies of COVID-19 therapeutics

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic spurred publication of a rapid proliferation of studies on potential therapeutic agents. While important for the advancement of clinical care, pressure to collect, analyze, and report data in an expedited manner could potentially increase the rate of important errors, some of which would be captured in published errata. We hypothesized that COVID-19 therapeutic studies published in the early years of the pandemic would be associated with a high rate of published errata and that, within these errata, there would be a high prevalence of serious errors.

METHODS

We performed a review of published errata associated with empirical studies of COVID-19 treatments. Errata were identified via a MEDLINE and Embase search spanning January 2020 through September 2022. Errors located within each published erratum were characterized by location within publication, error type, and error seriousness.

RESULTS

Of 47 studies on COVID-19 treatments with published errata, 18 met inclusion criteria. Median time from publication of the original article to publication of the associated erratum was 76 days (range, 12-511 days). A majority of errata addressed issues with author attribution or conflict of interest disclosures (39.5%) or numerical results (25.6%). Only one erratum contained a serious error: a typographical error which could have misled readers into believing that the treatment in question had serious adverse effects when in fact it did not.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite accelerated publication times, we found among studies of COVID-19 treatments the majority of errata (17/18) reported minor errors that did not lead to misinterpretation of the study results. Retractions, an indicator of scientific misdirection even more concerning than errata, were beyond the scope of this review.

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

Background

Studies related to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were frequently published as pre-prints prior to undergoing peer-review. However, several publications were later retracted due to ethical concerns or study misconduct. Although these studies have been retracted, the availability of their corresponding pre-prints has never been formally investigated, and may result in the spread of misinformation if they are being used to inform decision-making.

Methods

Our objective was to conduct a systematic survey of retracted COVID-19 publications listed on the Retraction Watch database as of August 15th, 2021. We assessed the availability of corresponding pre-prints for retracted publications, and documented the number of citations and online views.

Results

Our study included 140 retracted COVID-19 publications, and we could not retrieve corresponding pre-prints for 132 retracted publications in our study (94%). Although we were unable to find the majority of pre-prints, they had already been disseminated, with a maximal citation count of 593 and Altmetric score of 558,928.

Conclusion

While it is reassuring that most corresponding pre-prints could not be retrieved, our study highlights the need for online platforms and journals to employ quality assurance methods to prevent the spread of misinformation through citation of retracted papers.

Retraction of Clinical Trials about the SARS-CoV-2 Infection: An Unaddressed Problem and Its Possible Impact on Coronavirus Disease (COVID)-19 Treatment

We are presenting an overview of the retracted clinical trials about the Coronavirus Disease (COVID)-19 published in PubMed using the descriptors ((COVID-19 OR SARS-CoV-2) AND (Clinical Trial)). We collected the information for i) the first author's country; ii) the journal name where the study was published; iii) the impact factor of the journal; iv) the main objective of the study; v) methods including population, intervention, study design, and outcomes; and vi) results and conclusions. We collected complete information from the retraction notes published by the journals and the number of publications/retractions related to non-COVID-19 clinical trials published simultaneously. We also included the Altmetric index for the clinical trials and the retraction notes about COVID-19 to compare the accessibility to both studies' indexes. The retraction of clinical trials occurred in four countries (one in Lebanon, one in India, one in Brazil, and five in Egypt) and six journals (one in Viruses, one in Archives of Virology, one in Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy, one in Frontiers in Medicine, two in Scientific Reports, and two in The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene). Eight drugs were tested (Ivermectin, Vitamin D, Proxalutamide, Hydroxychloroquine, Remdesevir, Favipiravir, and Sofosbuvir + Daclatasvir) in the studies. One of the retractions was suggested by the authors due to an error in the statistical analysis, which compromised their results and conclusions. Also, the methods, mainly the allocation, were not well conducted in the two studies, and the studies were retracted. In addition, the studies performed by Dabbous et al. presented several issues, mainly including several raw datasets that did not prove their findings. Moreover, two studies were retracted due to data overlap and copying. Significant concerns were raised about the integrity of the data and reported results in another article. We identified a higher Altmetric index for the original studies, proving that the retracted studies were accessed more than the retraction notes. Interestingly, the impact of the original articles is much higher than their retraction notes. The different Altmetric indexes show that possibly people who read those retracted articles are not reading their retraction notes and are unaware of the erroneous information they share. COVID-19- related clinical trials were ~two-time times more retracted than the other clinical trials performed during the same time.

Susceptibility to COVID-19 Nutrition Misinformation and Eating Behavior Change during Lockdowns: An International Web-Based Survey

To understand the susceptibility to nutrition-health misinformation related to preventing, treating, or mitigating the risk of COVID-19 during the initial lockdowns around the world, the present international web-based survey study (15 April-15 May 2020) gauged participants' (n = 3707) level of nutrition-health misinformation discernment by presenting them with 25 statements (including unfounded or unproven claims circulated at the time), alongside the influence of information sources of varying quality on the frequency of changes in their eating behavior and the extent of misinformation held, depending on the source used for such changes. Results revealed widespread misinformation about food, eating, and health practices related to COVID-19, with the 25 statements put to participants receiving up to 43% misinformed answers (e.g., 'It is safe to eat fruits and vegetables that have been washed with soap or diluted bleach'). Whereas higher quality information sources (nutrition scientists, nutrition professionals) had the biggest influence on eating behavior change, we found greater misinformation susceptibility when relying on poor quality sources for changing diet. Appropriate discernment of misinformation was weakest amongst participants who more frequently changed their eating behavior because of information from poor quality sources, suggesting disparities in the health risks/safety of the changes performed.

Implementation Methods and Research for a Post-truth World with Growing Inequities

The purpose of this article is to consider the changing context for implementation research and practice and new approaches which might now be more relevant for some implementation objectives. Factors that hindered implementation of evidence-based practices before the COVID-19 pandemic was an anti-science culture, strengthened by different media and appeals to emotion and identity. The article questions how effective are the rational-cognitive and individual models of change that frequency informs our research and practice. It describes challenges we face and considers methods we could use that might be more effective, including research-informed narrative methods, participatory research and practice, especially with culturally and linguistically diverse peoples, and adaptive implementation.

Journal editors and publishers’ legal obligations with respect to medical research misconduct

As the burden of misconduct in medical research is increasingly recognised, questions have been raised about how best to address this problem. Whilst there are existing mechanisms for the investigation and management of misconduct in medical literature, they are inadequate to deal with the magnitude of the problem. Journal editors and publishers play an essential role in protecting the veracity of the medical literature. Whilst ethical guidance for journal editors and publishers is important, it is not as readily enforceable as legal obligations might be. This article questions the legal obligations that might exist for journal editors and publishing companies with respect to ensuring the veracity of the published literature. Ultimately, there is no enforceable legal obligation in Australia, the United Kingdom, or the United States. In light of this, more robust mechanisms are needed to deliver greater confidence and transparency in the investigative process, the management of concerns or findings of misconduct and the need to cleanse the literature. We show that the law disincentivises journals and publishers from ensuring truth in their publications. There are harmful consequences for medical care and public confidence in the medical profession and health care system when the foundations of medical science are questionable.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Biomedical Publications and Their Citation Frequency

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in enormous related publications. However, the citation frequency of these documents and their influence on the journal impact factor (JIF) are not well examined. We aimed to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on biomedical research publications and their citation frequency.

METHODS

We searched publications on biomedical research in the Web of Science using the search terms "COVID-19," "SARS-Cov-2," "2019 corona*," "corona virus disease 2019," "coronavirus disease 2019," "novel coronavirus infection" and "2019-ncov." The top 200 journals were defined as those with a higher number of COVID-19 publications than other journals in 2020. The COVID-19 impact ratio was calculated as the ratio of the average number of citations per item in 2021 to the JIF for 2020.

RESULTS

The average number of citations for the top 200 journals in 2021, per item published in 2020, was 25.7 (range, 0-270). The average COVID-19 impact ratio was 3.84 (range, 0.26-16.58) for 197 journals that recorded the JIF for 2020. The average JIF ratio for the top 197 journals including the JIFs for 2020 and 2021 was 1.77 (range, 0.68-8.89). The COVID-19 impact ratio significantly correlated with the JIF ratio (r = 0.403, P = 0.010). Twenty-five Korean journals with a COVID-19 impact ratio > 1.5 demonstrated a higher JIF ratio (1.31 ± 0.39 vs. 1.01 ± 0.18, P < 0.001) than 33 Korean journals with a lower COVID-19 impact ratio.

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 pandemic infection has significantly impacted the trends in biomedical research and the citation of related publications.

Reducing the Inadvertent Spread of Retracted Science: recommendations from the RISRS report

BACKGROUND

Retraction is a mechanism for alerting readers to unreliable material and other problems in the published scientific and scholarly record. Retracted publications generally remain visible and searchable, but the intention of retraction is to mark them as "removed" from the citable record of scholarship. However, in practice, some retracted articles continue to be treated by researchers and the public as valid content as they are often unaware of the retraction. Research over the past decade has identified a number of factors contributing to the unintentional spread of retracted research. The goal of the Reducing the Inadvertent Spread of Retracted Science: Shaping a Research and Implementation Agenda (RISRS) project was to develop an actionable agenda for reducing the inadvertent spread of retracted science. This included identifying how retraction status could be more thoroughly disseminated, and determining what actions are feasible and relevant for particular stakeholders who play a role in the distribution of knowledge.

METHODS

These recommendations were developed as part of a year-long process that included a scoping review of empirical literature and successive rounds of stakeholder consultation, culminating in a three-part online workshop that brought together a diverse body of 65 stakeholders in October-November 2020 to engage in collaborative problem solving and dialogue. Stakeholders held roles such as publishers, editors, researchers, librarians, standards developers, funding program officers, and technologists and worked for institutions such as universities, governmental agencies, funding organizations, publishing houses, libraries, standards organizations, and technology providers. Workshop discussions were seeded by materials derived from stakeholder interviews (N = 47) and short original discussion pieces contributed by stakeholders. The online workshop resulted in a set of recommendations to address the complexities of retracted research throughout the scholarly communications ecosystem.

RESULTS

The RISRS recommendations are: (1) Develop a systematic cross-industry approach to ensure the public availability of consistent, standardized, interoperable, and timely information about retractions; (2) Recommend a taxonomy of retraction categories/classifications and corresponding retraction metadata that can be adopted by all stakeholders; (3) Develop best practices for coordinating the retraction process to enable timely, fair, unbiased outcomes; and (4) Educate stakeholders about pre- and post-publication stewardship, including retraction and correction of the scholarly record.

CONCLUSIONS

Our stakeholder engagement study led to 4 recommendations to address inadvertent citation of retracted research, and formation of a working group to develop the Communication of Retractions, Removals, and Expressions of Concern (CORREC) Recommended Practice. Further work will be needed to determine how well retractions are currently documented, how retraction of code and datasets impacts related publications, and to identify if retraction metadata (fails to) propagate. Outcomes of all this work should lead to ensuring retracted papers are never cited without awareness of the retraction, and that, in public fora outside of science, retracted papers are not treated as valid scientific outputs.

Massive covidization of research citations and the citation elite

The COVID-19 pandemic saw a massive mobilization of the scientific workforce. We evaluated the citation impact of COVID-19 publications relative to all scientific work published in 2020 to 2021, finding that 20% of citations received to papers published in 2020 to 2021 were to COVID-19–related papers. Across science, 98 of the 100 most-cited papers published in 2020 to 2021 were related to COVID-19. A large number of scientists received large numbers of citations to their COVID-19 work, often exceeding the citations they had received to all their work during their entire career. We document a strong covidization of research citations across science. This may have major repercussions for research priorities and the evolution of research on COVID-19 and beyond.

Massive scientific productivity accompanied the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the citation impact of COVID-19 publications relative to all scientific work published in 2020 to 2021 and assessed the impact on scientist citation profiles. Using Scopus data until August 1, 2021, COVID-19 items accounted for 4% of papers published, 20% of citations received to papers published in 2020 to 2021, and >30% of citations received in 36 of the 174 disciplines of science (up to 79.3% in general and internal medicine). Across science, 98 of the 100 most-cited papers published in 2020 to 2021 were related to COVID-19; 110 scientists received ≥10,000 citations for COVID-19 work, but none received ≥10,000 citations for non–COVID-19 work published in 2020 to 2021. For many scientists, citations to their COVID-19 work already accounted for more than half of their total career citation count. Overall, these data show a strong covidization of research citations across science, with major impact on shaping the citation elite.

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.

Improving the Reliability of Literature Reviews: Detection of Retracted Articles through Academic Search Engines

Nowadays, a multitude of scientific publications on health science are being developed that require correct bibliographic search in order to avoid the use and inclusion of retracted literature in them. The use of these articles could directly affect the consistency of the scientific studies and could affect clinical practice. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the capacity of the main scientific literature search engines, both general (Gooogle Scholar) and scientific (PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science), used in health sciences in order to check their ability to detect and warn users of retracted articles in the searches carried out. The sample of retracted articles was obtained from RetractionWatch. The results showed that although Google Scholar was the search engine with the highest capacity to retrieve selected articles, it was the least effective, compared with scientific search engines, at providing information on the retraction of articles. The use of different scientific search engines to retrieve as many scientific articles as possible, as well as never using only a generic search engine, is highly recommended. This will reduce the possibility of including retracted articles and will avoid affecting the reliability of the scientific studies carried out.