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

Against "silent" retractions in neuroscience

When an academic paper is published in a journal that assigns a digital object identifier (DOI) to papers, this is a de facto fait accompli. Corrections or retractions are supposed to follow a specific protocol, especially in journals that claim to follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines. In this paper, we highlight a case of a new, fully open access neuroscience journal that claims to be COPE-compliant, yet has silently retracted two papers since all records, bibliometrics, and PDF files related to their existence have been deleted from the journal's website. Although this phenomenon does not seem to be common in the neurosciences, we consider that any opaque corrective measures in journals whose papers could be cited may negatively impact the wider neuroscience literature and community. Instead, we encourage transparency in retraction to promote truthfulness and trustworthiness.

A switch in letters leads to the "creation" of Eszett (ß)-catenin rather than beta (β)-catenin

A simple replacement-most likely due to a linguistic error-of the Greek letter beta (β) by the German letter Eszett (ß), has led to the introduction of an error in a body of literature related to beta (β)-catenin, resulting in the "creation" of a non-existent compound and false positive, Eszett (ß)-catenin. A search on 9 December 2023 in PubMed for ß-catenin and β-catenin revealed 395 and 45,919 results, respectively. The 25 results of ß-catenin published in 2023 were examined in more detail to appreciate the location(s) in each paper where this error had occurred. While the scientific findings of these studies do not seem to be impacted by this error, authors and editors would need to weigh the need or benefit of correcting this error.

The author expression ​of concern (AEOC): A proposed formal mechanism to allow authors' legitimate concerns to be heard, and their rights and voices to be respected

We propose a type of DOI-based manuscript, the author expression of concern (AEOC), allowing authors to formally publish their concerns about legitimate procedural problems associated with editors, reviewers, journals or publishers. Managed by a neutral third-party arbitrator or moderator, AEOCs would be limited in size and subjected to fair but strict screening of presented evidence. When an AEOC is approved for publication by an arbitrator, the criticized party would also need to formally respond within a reasonable period, as a "letter to the author(s)", which is also screened by the same arbitrator. Expanding the range of publishing options for authors, as AEOCs, would allow them to voice their legitimate concerns related to a journal's procedures in a formalized format. Although implementation might be challenging at first, it could demonstrate the fairness of editorial policies and democratize the publication process by taking authors' legitimate expressions of discontent related to procedure, and their rights of expression into account, elevating them to a formal article status, allowing for a more balanced two-way system of accountability and openness. Author empowerment that matches editorial and publisher empowerment is essential for a journal to truly claim to be fair, just and accountable.

Assessing the Integrity of Clinical Trials Included in Evidence Syntheses

Evidence syntheses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) offer the highest level of scientific evidence for informing clinical practice and policy. The value of evidence synthesis itself depends on the trustworthiness of the included RCTs. The rising number of retractions and expressions of concern about the authenticity of RCTs has raised awareness about the existence of problematic studies, sometimes called "zombie" trials. Research integrity, i.e., adherence to ethical and professional standards, is a multi-dimensional concept that is incompletely evaluated for the RCTs included in current evidence syntheses. Systematic reviewers tend to rely on the editorial and peer-review system established by journals as custodians of integrity of the RCTs they synthesize. It is now well established that falsified and fabricated RCTs are slipping through. Thus, RCT integrity assessment becomes a necessary step in systematic reviews going forward, in particular because RCTs with data-related integrity concerns remain available for use in evidence syntheses. There is a need for validated tools for systematic reviewers to proactively deploy in the assessment of integrity deviations without having to wait for RCTs to be retracted by journals or expressions of concern issued. This article analyzes the issues and challenges in conducting evidence syntheses where the literature contains RCTs with possible integrity deficits. The way forward in the form of formal RCT integrity assessments in systematic reviews is proposed, and implications of this new initiative are discussed. Future directions include emphasizing ethical and professional standards, providing tailored integrity-specific training, and creating systems to promote research integrity, as improvements in RCT integrity will benefit evidence syntheses.

Better guidance is needed for editorial expressions of concern

On occasion, following the publication of a paper, serious concerns might be raised, either about the study, the author(s), or background processes. When editors-in-chief (EiCs) have sufficient evidence in the case of a serious ethical offense or methodological errors that may invalidate the paper's findings or ethical standing, they can retract the paper rapidly. However, in the interim period between receiving a report and seeking a solution, several weeks, months or even years might pass, and readers need to be alerted to its potential unreliability. In such an instance, the current alertive (but not corrective) document takes the form of an editorial expression of concern (EoC). However, a case might be unresolved for a long time, with an EoC attached to it, so EiCs are encouraged to seek a resolution as promptly as possible because there are academics who might need to cite and/or rely on that paper. Curiously, even though a comprehensive debate is provided by COPE ethics guidelines and ICMJE recommendations, which refer to EoCs, guidance is not entirely clear. This paper makes an attempt to improve guidelines that editors could consider when faced with the dilemma of whether to issue an EoC, or not.

Amending the literature through version control

The ideal of self-correction in science is not well served by the current culture and system surrounding amendments to published literature. Here we describe our view of how amendments could and should work by drawing on the idea of an author-led version control system. We report a survey (n = 132) that highlights academics' dissatisfaction with the status quo and their support for such an alternative approach. Authors would include a link in their published manuscripts to an updatable website (e.g. a GitHub repository) that could be disseminated in the event of any amendment. Such a system is already in place for computer code and requires nothing but buy-in from the scientific community-a community that is already evolving towards open science frameworks. This would remove a number of frictions that discourage amendments leading to an improved scientific literature and a healthier academic climate.

Amyloid-Eszett (Aß), a false positive of amyloid-beta (Aβ)

When the Greek letter beta (β) is accidentally confused for the German letter Eszett (ß), and replaced by it, this can lead to some unfortunate consequences in science, academic publishing, and thus the accuracy of the academic record. In this letter, I document the existence - due to this substitution - of a false positive of amyloid-beta (Aβ), namely amyloid-Eszett (Aß), which does not exist. In total, 242 false positives were identified in PubMed. Of these, 21 were published in 2022, and these were examined in more detail. Although fundamental findings of papers related to Alzheimer's disease are likely not affected by this error, these papers do carry an error nonetheless.

Variations in the naming of malondialdehyde (MDA) in PubMed-, Scopus-, and Web of science-indexed literature

Malondialdehyde (MDA) is a product of lipid peroxidation that is often determined in abiotic stress-related phytoremediation research. This study assessed (July 14, 2022) the frequency of eight nomenclatural forms of MDA between 2001 and 2021 using three major databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (WoS9). The most common form (75,060, 57,874, and 65,663 times in PubMed, Scopus, and WoS, respectively) of MDA was "malondialdehyde", followed by "malonaldehyde" (68,240, 3815, and 2337 times in these three databases, respectively). According to WoS, the journals that used "malondialdehyde" and "malonaldehyde" most frequently were Environmental Science and Pollution Research (Springer-Nature) (587 times) and The Journal of Chemical Physics (AIP Publishing) (57 times). Other less-frequent forms were: malonyldialdehyde, malonic dialdehyde, malon-dialdehyde, malone dialdehyde, malonic aldehyde, and malonodialdehyde. We recommend that the editors of journals that publish papers with themes that are closely associated with plant stress specify in their instructions for authors their journal's preferable nomenclatural form of MDA. The plant abiotic stress community, including phytoremediation specialists, need to debate this topic with the objective of seeking a standardized nomenclatural form of MDA, which would help to fortify the integrity of searches in major databases by allowing all relevant literature to be accurately identified. Novelty statementMalondialdehyde (MDA), a product of lipid peroxidation that is often determined in stress-related phytoremediation research, has various forms to its name. These nomenclatural variations were assessed in PubMed-, Scopus-, and Web of Science-indexed literature. This is the first study to detect, report, quantify and debate these forms of MDA.