Optimizing peer review to minimize the risk of retracting COVID-19-related literature

Evaluating the discoverability of supporting research materials in ClinicalTrials.gov for US federally funded COVID-19 clinical studies

Objective

The objective of this study was to evaluate the discoverability of supporting research materials, including supporting documents, individual participant data (IPD), and associated publications, in US federally funded COVID-19 clinical study records in ClinicalTrials.gov (CTG).

Methods

Study registration records were evaluated for (1) links to supporting documents, including protocols, informed consent forms, and statistical analysis plans; (2) information on how unaffiliated researchers may access IPD and, when applicable, the linking of the IPD record back to the CTG record; and (3) links to associated publications and, when applicable, the linking of the publication record back to the CTG record.

Results

206 CTG study records were included in the analysis. Few records shared supporting documents, with only 4% of records sharing all 3 document types. 27% of records indicated they intended to share IPD, with 45% of these providing sufficient information to request access to the IPD. Only 1 dataset record was located, which linked back to its corresponding CTG record. The majority of CTG records did not have links to publications (61%), and only 21% linked out to at least 1 results publication. All publication records linked back to their corresponding CTG records.

Conclusion

With only 4% of records sharing all supporting document types, 12% sufficient information to access IPD, and 21% results publications, improvements can be made to the discoverability of research materials in federally funded, COVID-19 CTG records. Sharing these materials on CTG can increase their discoverability, therefore increasing the validity, transparency, and reusability of clinical research.

A survey of surveys: an evaluation of the quality of published surveys in neurosurgery

PURPOSE

Surveys generate valuable data in epidemiologic and qualitative clinical research. The quality of a survey depends on its design, the number of responses it receives, and the reporting of the results. In this study, we aimed to assess the quality of surveys in neurosurgery.

METHODS

Neurosurgical surveys published between 2000 and 2020 (inclusive) were identified from PubMed. Various datapoints regarding the surveys were collated. The number of citations received by the papers was determined from Google Scholar. A 6-dimensional quality assessment tool was applied to the surveys. Parameters from this tool were combined with the number of responses received to create the survey quality score (SQS).

RESULTS

A total of 618 surveys were included for analysis. The target sample size correlated with the number of responses received. The response rate correlated positively with the target sample size and the number of reminders sent and negatively with the number of questions in the survey. The median number of authors on neurosurgery survey papers was 6. The number of authors correlated with the SQS and the number of citations received by published survey papers. The median normalized SQS for neurosurgical surveys was 65%. The nSQS independently predicted the citations received per year by surveys.

CONCLUSIONS

The modifiable factors that correlated with improvements in survey design were optimizing the number of questions, maximizing the target sample size, and incorporating reminders in the survey design. Increasing the number of contributing authors led to improvements in survey quality. The SQS was validated and correlated well with the citations received by surveys.

Evidence-based policies in public health to address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy

A fundamental basis for effective health-related policymaking of any democratic nation should be open and transparent communication between a government and its citizens, including scientists and healthcare professionals, to foster a climate of trust, especially during the ongoing COVID-19 mass vaccination campaign. Since misinformation is a leading cause of vaccine hesitancy, open data sharing through an evidence-based approach may render the communication of health strategies developed by policymakers with the public more effective, allowing misinformation and claims that are not backed by scientific evidence to be tackled. In this narrative review, we debate possible causes of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and links to the COVID-19 misinformation epidemic. We also put forward plausible solutions as recommended in the literature.

Self-correction in science: The effect of retraction on the frequency of citations

We investigate the citation frequency of retracted scientific papers in science. For the period of five years before and after retraction, we counted the citations to papers in a sample of over 3,000 retracted, and a matched sample of another 3,000 non-retracted papers. Retraction led to a decrease in average annual citation frequency from about 5 before, to 2 citations after retraction. In contrast, for non-retracted control papers the citation counts were 4, and 5, respectively. Put differently, we found only a limited effect of retraction: retraction decreased citation frequency only by about 60%, as compared to non-retracted papers. Thus, retracted papers often live on. For effective self-correction the scientific enterprise needs to be more effective in removing retracted papers from the scientific record. We discuss recent proposals to do so.

Handling Ethics Dumping and Neo-Colonial Research: From the Laboratory to the Academic Literature

This paper explores that the topic of ethics dumping (ED), its causes and potential remedies. In ED, the weaknesses or gaps in ethics policies and systems of lower income countries are intentionally exploited for intellectual or financial gains through research and publishing by higher income countries with a more stringent or complex ethical infrastructure in which such research and publishing practices would not be permitted. Several examples are provided. Possible ED needs to be evaluated before research takes place, and detected prior to publication as an academic paper, because it might lead to a collaborative effort between a wealthier country with restrictive ethical policies and a less wealthy country with more permissive policies. Consequently, if that collaboration ultimately results in an academic paper, there are ethical ramifications of ED to scholarly communication. Institutional review board approval is central to avoid ED-based collaborations. Blind trust and goodwill alone cannot eliminate the exploitation of indigenous or "vulnerable" populations' intellect and resources. Combining community-based participatory research using clear codes of research conduct and a simple but robust verification system in academic publishing may reduce the risks of ED-based research from being published.

Reproducibility of COVID-19 pre-prints

To examine the reproducibility of COVID-19 research, we create a dataset of pre-prints posted to arXiv, bioRxiv, and medRxiv between 28 January 2020 and 30 June 2021 that are related to COVID-19. We extract the text from these pre-prints and parse them looking for keyword markers signaling the availability of the data and code underpinning the pre-print. For the pre-prints that are in our sample, we are unable to find markers of either open data or open code for 75% of those on arXiv, 67% of those on bioRxiv, and 79% of those on medRxiv.

Retracted randomized controlled trials were cited and not corrected in systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether and when the correction is done in Systematic Reviews (SRs) and Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) when included Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) have been retracted.

METHODS

In this meta-epidemiological study, we included SRs and CPGs citing the retracted RCTs from the Retraction Watch Database. We investigated how often the retracted RCTs were cited in SRs and CPGs. We also investigated whether and when such SRs and CPGs corrected themselves.

RESULTS

We identified 587 articles (525 SRs and 62 CPGs) citing retracted RCTs. Among the 587 articles, 252 (43%) were published after retraction, and 335 (57%) were published before retraction. Among 127 articles published citing already retracted RCTs in their evidence synthesis without caution, none corrected themselves after publication. Of 335 articles published before retraction, 239 included RCTs that were later retracted in their evidence synthesis. Among them, only 5% of SRs (9/196) and 5% of CPGs (2/43) corrected or retracted their results.

CONCLUSION

Many SRs and CPGs included already or later retracted RCTs without caution. Most of them were never corrected. The scientific community, including publishers and researchers, should make systematic and concerted efforts to remove the impact of retracted RCTs.

Citation of retracted research: a case-controlled, ten-year follow-up scientometric analysis of Scott S. Reuben’s malpractice

A major problem in scientific literature is the citation of retracted research. Until now, no long-term follow-up of the course of citations of such articles has been published. In the present study, we determined the development of citations of retracted articles based on the case of anaesthesiologist and pain researcher Scott S. Reuben, over a period of 10 years and compared them to matched controls. We screened four databases to find retracted publications by Scott S. Ruben and reviewed full publications for indications of retraction status. To obtain a case-controlled analysis, all Reuben’s retracted articles were compared with the respective citations of the preceeding and subsequent neighbouring articles within the same journal. There were 420 citations between 2009 and 2019, of which only 40% indicated the publication being retracted. Over a 10-year period, an increasing linear trend is observed in citations of retracted articles by Scott S. Ruben that are not reported as retracted (R2 = 0.3647). Reuben’s retracted articles were cited 92% more often than the neighbouring non-retracted articles. This study highlights a major scientific problem. Invented or falsified data are still being cited after more than a decade, leading to a distortion of the evidence and scientometric parameters.

Perspectives on academic mentorship, research collaborations, career advice and work-life balance: a masterclass conversation with Professor Salim Abdool Karim

Mentorship and collaboration are fundamental to ensure success in research, particularly health research. In this article, we summarise a conversation between the Master's in Biostatistics students at Stellenbosch University and Professor Salim Abdool Karim, the head of the Centre for the AIDS Programme of Research in South Africa. In May 2021, Professor Abdool Karim was invited to share some of his expertise and knowledge on successful mentorship and collaboration with researchers in the early stages of their careers. Passion, hard work and always trying one's best were some of the key values he highlighted as what a young researcher would need to succeed in today's world. In this candid and open discussion, Professor Abdool Karim provides valuable insight pertaining to the intricacies of a career in research, in terms of collaboration, mentorship and personal lessons drawn from his own life experience.

Accessibility to Non-COVID Health Services in the World During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Review

Background: COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV2 has seriously impacted the global economy. Medical facilities around the world were not prepared for the enormous challenges posed by the growing number of patients each day, the shortage of personal protective equipment, and insufficient numbers of medical staff. Governments have tried to counteract the impact of the pandemic, but the measures taken have not always been sufficient to maintain access to and quality of health services at the same level as before the pandemic. The disruption of health services has resulted in more and more research reports from different parts of the world on the accessibility of health services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methodology: This review article presents 21 selected scientific studies on access to health services in different regions of the world. Articles were found in PubMed, GoogleScholar, Medline, and ScienceDirect databases, then grouped, and significant data were extracted from each article. The results were summarized in a table. Results: The range of limited health services included a variety of specialties, including primary care, psychiatry, orthopedics, cardiology, neurosurgery, and more. Methods used in the studies were based on retrospective analysis or on the subjective assessment of patients in the form of a questionnaire or interview. Most authors claimed a decrease in accessibility to health services during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the pre-pandemic period, including a decrease in planned surgeries, doctor appointments, patient admission to hospital or ER, and access to medicines. Additionally, some authors observed an increase in the mortality rate. One of the few medical services that have expanded rapidly during the pandemic was online appointments. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic has most certainly affected the accessibility of health services worldwide. Lessons should be learned to prevent inaccessibility to medical services, especially as experts predict another wave of COVID-19 cases.

Scientometric analysis of medical publications during COVID-19 pandemic: the twenty-twenty research boom

INTRODUCTION

There was significant surge in the academic publications after the onset of COVID-19 outbreak. The aim of this study was to scientometrically analyze all the medical publications on COVID-19 in 2020 as well as the top 100 cited articles.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We performed a search of the "Web of Science" database using the keywords "COVID," and "corona" on December 20, 2020.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Our search retrieved a total of 45,420 articles on the topic COVID-19 in the year 2020. Corresponding authors from 143 countries contributed to these articles. The highest number of articles were contributed by corresponding authors from the USA (N.=10299), whereas 50 articles in the top 100 cited articles had corresponding authors from China. Among the top 100 cited, the majority were published from Huazhong University of Science and Technology in China (N.=37). New England Journal of Medicine had the maximum impact (h-index of 57), closely followed by Lancet (h-index=55).

CONCLUSIONS

Scientific publications amount on COVID-19 disease grew at an astonishing pace during 2020. We caution the readers that this rapidity of publication could have missed out on the rigorous review process and the scientific basis of the methods followed.

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

BACKGROUND

Retraction of published research can reduce the dissemination of incorrect or misleading information, but concerns have been raised about the clarity and rigor of the retraction process. Failure to clearly and consistently retract research has several risks, for example discredited or erroneous research may inform health research studies (e.g. clinical trials), policies and practices, potentially rendering these unreliable.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate consistency and clarity of research retraction, based on a case study of retracted Covid-19 research.

STUDY DESIGN

A cross-sectional study of retracted Covid-19 articles reporting empirical research findings, based on searches of Medline, Embase and Scopus on 10th July and 19th December 2020.

KEY RESULTS

We included 46 retracted Covid-19 articles. The number eligible for inclusion nearly doubled, from 26 to 46, in five months. Most articles (67%) were retracted from scientific journals and the remainder from preprint servers. Key findings: (1) reasons for retraction were not reported in 33% (15/46) of cases; (2) time from publication to retraction could not be determined in 43% (20/46) of cases; (3) More than half (59%) of retracted Covid-19 articles (27/46) remained available as original unmarked electronic documents after retraction (33% as full text and 26% as an abstract only). Sources of articles post-retraction were preprint servers, ResearchGate and, less commonly, websites including PubMed Central and the World Health Organization. A retracted journal article which controversially claimed a link between 5G technology and Covid-19 remains available in its original full text from at least 60 different websites.

CONCLUSIONS

The retraction process is inconsistent and often ambiguous, with more than half of retracted Covid-19 research articles remaining available, unmarked, from a wide range of online sources. There is an urgent need to improve guidance on the retraction process and to extend this to cover preprint servers. We provide structured recommendations to address these concerns and to reduce the risks that arise when retracted research is inappropriately cited.

Adjusting the use of preprints to accommodate the 'quality' factor in response to COVID-19

Preprints are typically crude precursors of peer-reviewed papers that are placed almost immediately, save for some superficial screening, on an open-access repository to allow the information to reach readers quickly, circumventing the long-drawn process typically associated with processing in peer-reviewed journals. For early-career researchers who might be enthusiastic about obtaining some recognition for their efforts, or wanting open and public input about their work, preprints are certainly a useful publication choice. However, if health-related data and information have not been carefully scrutinised, they may pose a risk and may even serve as a source of public health misinformation. Surging growth and competition among preprint servers, coupled with a massive volume of COVID-19-related preprints, mainly on bioRxiv and medRxiv, as well as select indexing now being tested on PubMed, suggests that preprints are being increasingly used in the biomedical sciences. Stronger and more robust ethical policies are needed to screen preprints before they are released to the public, and even if this implies a slight delay in publication, it may increase academics' trust in this form of scientific information and communication. Clear and stringent ethical policies need to be urgently introduced by ethics groups such as COPE and the ICMJE, whose many member journals allow preprints to be posted before traditional peer review. Stringent ethical guidelines that treat misconduct equally in preprints and peer-reviewed papers will boost the integrity of academic publishing.

Reasons and implications of retracted articles in Brazil

Abstract Over the years, cases of retractions due to unintentional errors or research misconduct have been the subject of discussion, being indispensable to avoid the propagation of misleading information. To understand this matter in the Brazilian scenario, this study characterizes the retractions of authorship or co-authorship of Brazilian researchers between 2002 and 2019, their related consequences and impacts on scientific activity. With a data collection performed at the Retraction Watch database, we analyzed quantitative aspects of the reasons for retractions, stratification by areas of knowledge, the time between publication and retraction, the association of journals and impact factor, authors’ recidivism, the institutional collaboration between Brazilian institutions and countries and funding sources. The results of the analysis of 162 retractions indicate the prevalence of plagiarism (12.2%), the incidence of retracted articles in the Bioscience area (28.1%), in journals with Impact Factors between 2 and 5 (38.0%), and with 2 to 4 authors (38.8%). The occurrences and recurrences of retractions due to misconduct have an impact not only the author’s professional activity but science. Thus, this article emphasizes the importance of prompt retraction, as well as of the need to improve mechanisms to prevent these articles from being published from the start.