Perpetuation of Retracted Publications Using the Example of the Scott S. Reuben Case: Incidences, Reasons and Possible Improvements

Evaluation of retracted articles in the field of emergency medicine on the web of science database

BACKGROUND

The retraction of articles stands as the most significant mechanism employed to uphold the integrity of science, particularly in flawed studies.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to explore the reasons for article retractions in the field of emergency medicine and elucidate the problems arising from such retractions. The goal is to identify parameters in retracted articles that compromise scientific knowledge and raise awareness.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retracted articles within the emergency medicine category were analyzed and assessed using the Web of Science database. The study sought to address the following questions: 1. In which year or years were the most articles retracted? 2. In which journals were the retracted articles published? 3. What is the distribution of topics in retracted articles? 4. What are the reasons for the retraction of articles? 5. What is the time difference and citation count between the publication and retraction years of the articles?

RESULTS

The study delved into reasons for article retractions, types of retracted articles, and other relevant factors. A total of 61 retracted articles were examined and analyzed, revealing an increasing trend in the rate of article retractions over the years. The majority of retracted articles occurred in 2023, with the highest retraction rate identified in the "Emergency Medicine International" journal. On average, articles were retracted 356 days after publication. Reasons for retracted articles included concerns related to data, authorship issues, plagiarism, duplication, and biased or fraudulent peer review.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provided an examination of retracted articles in the field of emergency medicine, highlighting a noteworthy increase in retractions due to various reasons. Despite retractions, it was observed that the citation counts of retracted articles increased. The growing number of retracted articles and frequent citations pose potential dangers from a scientific perspective, as citing retracted articles damages scientific integrity. The study underscores the importance of understanding the reasons for retracted articles and preventing the spread of such incidents in emergency medicine literature. The results, analyzed within various variables, indicate the need for further research and solutions, guiding future research efforts and contributing to the literature.

A Systematic Review of Retracted Publications in Clinical Orthopaedic Research

BACKGROUND

Retracted publications are an often-overlooked issue affecting the scientific community, and recent data confirms the overall number of retracted publications is rising. While this has previously been looked at within orthopaedic surgery, a contemporary understanding of retractions is required due to the rapid expansion in publications. Our study aimed to assess the retracted publications within clinical orthopaedic research to evaluate for characteristics and trends.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted on December 14, 2023, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. There were 4 databases that were queried to identify retracted publications in clinical orthopaedics that assessed operative and nonoperative orthopaedic interventions (excluding basic science). Articles were independently screened by 2 reviewers; those meeting the inclusion criteria were evaluated for various characteristics, including reasons for retraction based on Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines.

RESULTS

There were 233 studies that met the inclusion criteria and were retracted between January 1, 1990, and December 14, 2023. Clinical orthopaedics represented 1.18% of all retracted publications identified through PubMed over this period. There were 87 articles that were retracted in 2023, up from 17 in 2022 (a 412% increase). Retracted studies were published in journals with 2022 impact factors up to 9.3, with an average of 3.1 (SD [standard deviation] 1.9). A total of 39.5% of the retracted studies were published in orthopaedic journals, and 60.9% of the retracted articles were published in exclusively open-access journals. The mean time from electronic publication to retraction was 2.1 years (SD 2.2). Retracted articles have been cited up to 180 times (mean 8.6; SD 20). Reasons for retraction included misconduct (45.9%), plagiarism (11.6%), redundant publication (11.6%), unethical research (10.3%), error (9.4%), and others (10.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of retractions in the clinical orthopaedic literature is increasing. Clinical research is the basis for clinical practice guidelines, the gold standard for informing medical decision-making. Retractions may be one harbinger of lower-quality publications; researchers, institutions, and journals together play important roles in maintaining scientific 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.

Flawed, futile, and fabricated-features that limit confidence in clinical research in pain and anaesthesia: a narrative review

The randomised controlled trial is the foundation of clinical research; yet there is concern that many trials have flaws in design, conduct, and reporting that undermine trustworthiness. Common flaws in trials include high risk of bias, small size, outcomes irrelevant to clinical care and patient's experience, and inability to detect efficacy even if present. These flaws carry forward into systematic reviews, which can confer the label of 'high-quality evidence' on inadequate data. Trials can be futile because their flaws mean that they cannot deliver any meaningful result in that different results in a small number of patients would be sufficient to change conclusions. Some trials have been discovered to be fabricated, the number of which is growing. The fields of anaesthesia and pain have more fabricated trials than other clinical fields, possibly because of increased vigilance. This narrative review examines these themes in depth whilst acknowledging an inescapable conclusion: that much of our clinical evidence is in trouble, and special measures are needed to bolster quality and confidence.

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.

Context Analysis of Continued Citation of Retracted Manuscripts Published in Anesthesiology Journals

The continued citation of retracted publications from the medical literature is a well-known and persistent problem. We describe the contexts of ongoing citations to manuscripts that have been retracted from a selection of anesthesiology journals. We also examine how bibliographic databases and publisher websites document the retracted status of these manuscripts. The authors performed an analysis of retracted publications from anesthesiology journals using the Retraction Watch database. We then examined how the retraction information was displayed on bibliographic databases, search engines, and publisher websites. The primary outcome was the context of continued citation after retraction of flawed publications within the specialty of anesthesiology. Secondary outcomes included comparison of the documentation, bibliographic databases, search engines, and publisher websites used in identifying the retracted status of these publications and provision of access to the respective retraction notices. A total of 245 original publications were retracted over a 28-year period from 9 anesthesiology journals. PubMed, compared to the other databases and search engines, was the most consistent (98.8%) in documenting the retracted status of the publications examined, as well as providing a direct link to the retraction notice. From the 211 publications retracted before January 2020, there were 1307 postretraction citations accessed from Scopus. The median number of postretraction citations was 3.5 (range, 0-88, with at least 1 citation in 164 publications) in Scopus. Of the postretraction citations, 80% affirmed the validity of the retracted publications, while only 5.2% of citations acknowledged the retraction or misconduct. In 10.2% of the citations from original research studies, retracted manuscripts appeared to influence the decision to pursue or the methods used in subsequent original research studies. The frequency of citation of the 15 most cited retracted publications declined in a similar pattern during the 10 years after retraction. Citation of manuscripts retracted from anesthesiology journals remains a common occurrence. Technological innovations and application of standards for handling retracted publications, as suggested by coalitions of researchers across the spectrum of scientific investigation, may serve to reduce the persistence of this error.

How to trust a scientist

Epistemic trust among scientists is inevitable. There are two questions about this: (1) What is the content of this trust, what do scientists trust each other for? (2) Is such trust epistemically justified? I argue that if we assume a traditional answer to (1), namely that scientists trust each other to be reliable informants, then the answer to question (2) is negative, certainly for the biomedical and social sciences. This motivates a different construal of trust among scientists and therefore a different answer to (1): scientists trust each other to only testify to claims that are backed by evidence gathered in accordance with prevailing methodological standards. On this answer, trust among scientists is epistemically justified.

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.

Expert-recommended biomedical journal articles: Their retractions or corrections, and post-retraction citing

Faculty Opinions has provided recommendations of important biomedical publications by domain experts (FMs) since 2001. The purpose of this study is two-fold: (1) identify the characteristics of the expert-recommended articles that were subsequently retracted and (2) investigate what happened after retraction. We examined a set of 232 recommended, later retracted or corrected articles. These articles were classified as New Finding (43%), Interesting Hypothesis (16%), and so on. More than 71% of the articles acknowledged funding support; the National Institutes of Health, USA (NIH) was a top funder (64%). The top reasons for retractions were Errors of various types (28%); Falsification/fabrication of data, image, or results (20%); Unreliable data, image, or results (16%); and Results not reproducible (16%). Retractions took from less than 2 months to more than 15 years. Only 15% of recommendations were withdrawn either after dissents were made by other FMs or after retractions. Most of the retracted articles continue to be cited post-retraction, especially those published in Nature, Science, and Cell. Significant positive correlations were observed between post-retraction citations and pre-retraction citations, between post-retraction citations and peak citations, and between post-retraction citations and the post-retraction citing span. A significant negative correlation was also observed between the post-retraction citing span and years taken to reach peak citations. Literature recommendation systems need to update the changing status of the recommended articles in a timely manner; invite the recommending experts to update their recommendations; and provide a personalised mechanism to alert users who have accessed the recommended articles on their subsequent retractions, concerns, or corrections.

Continued use of retracted papers: Temporal trends in citations and (lack of) awareness of retractions shown in citation contexts in biomedicine

We present the first database-wide study on the citation contexts of retracted papers, which covers 7,813 retracted papers indexed in PubMed, 169,434 citations collected from iCite, and 48,134 citation contexts identified from the XML version of the PubMed Central Open Access Subset. Compared with previous citation studies that focused on comparing citation counts using two time frames (i.e., preretraction and postretraction), our analyses show the longitudinal trends of citations to retracted papers in the past 60 years (1960-2020). Our temporal analyses show that retracted papers continued to be cited, but that old retracted papers stopped being cited as time progressed. Analysis of the text progression of pre- and postretraction citation contexts shows that retraction did not change the way the retracted papers were cited. Furthermore, among the 13,252 postretraction citation contexts, only 722 (5.4%) citation contexts acknowledged the retraction. In these 722 citation contexts, the retracted papers were most commonly cited as related work or as an example of problematic science. Our findings deepen the understanding of why retraction does not stop citation and demonstrate that the vast majority of postretraction citations in biomedicine do not document the retraction.

A qualitative and quantitative analysis of open citations to retracted articles: the Wakefield 1998 et al.'s case

In this article, we show the results of a quantitative and qualitative analysis of open citations on a popular and highly cited retracted paper: “Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis and pervasive developmental disorder in children” by Wakefield et al., published in 1998. The main purpose of our study is to understand the behavior of the publications citing one retracted article and the characteristics of the citations the retracted article accumulated over time. Our analysis is based on a methodology which illustrates how we gathered the data, extracted the topics of the citing articles and visualized the results. The data and services used are all open and free to foster the reproducibility of the analysis. The outcomes concerned the analysis of the entities citing Wakefield et al.’s article and their related in-text citations. We observed a constant increasing number of citations in the last 20 years, accompanied with a constant increment in the percentage of those acknowledging its retraction. Citing articles have started either discussing or dealing with the retraction of Wakefield et al.’s article even before its full retraction happened in 2010. Articles in the social sciences domain citing the Wakefield et al.’s one were among those that have mostly discussed its retraction. In addition, when observing the in-text citations, we noticed that a large number of the citations received by Wakefield et al.’s article has focused on general discussions without recalling strictly medical details, especially after the full retraction. Medical studies did not hesitate in acknowledging the retraction of the Wakefield et al.’s article and often provided strong negative statements on it.

Media and social media attention to retracted articles according to Altmetric

The number of retracted articles has grown fast. However, the extent to which researchers and the public are made adequately aware of these retractions and how the media and social media respond to them remains unknown. Here, we aimed to evaluate the media and social media attention received by retracted articles and assess also the attention they receive post-retraction versus pre-retraction. We downloaded all records of retracted literature maintained by the Retraction Watch Database and originally published between January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2015. For all 3,008 retracted articles with a separate DOI for the original and its retraction, we downloaded the respective Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) (from Altmetric) and citation count (from Crossref), for the original article and its retraction notice on June 6, 2018. We also compared the AAS of a random sample of 572 retracted full journal articles available on PubMed to that of unretracted full articles matched from the same issue and journal. 1,687 (56.1%) of retracted research articles received some amount of Altmetric attention, and 165 (5.5%) were even considered popular (AAS>20). 31 (1.0%) of 2,953 with a record on Crossref received >100 citations by June 6, 2018. Popular articles received substantially more attention than their retraction, even after adjusting for attention received post-retraction (Median difference, 29; 95% CI, 17-61). Unreliable results were the most frequent reason for retraction of popular articles (32; 19%), while fake peer review was the most common reason (421; 15%) for the retraction of other articles. In comparison to matched articles, retracted articles tended to receive more Altmetric attention (23/31 matched groups; P-value, 0.01), even after adjusting for attention received post-retraction. Our findings reveal that retracted articles may receive high attention from media and social media and that for popular articles, pre-retraction attention far outweighs post-retraction attention.

Citation of retracted publications: A challenging problem

Scientific publications with compromised integrity should be retracted. Papers citing retracted publications might need correction if findings depend on the retracted publication. While many studies have reported on post-retraction citations, few have focused on citations made before the retraction. We investigated the citation profile for a research group with 113 published concerns regarding publication integrity (CRPI). We identified 376 of their source publications that were cited by 5577 articles, and whether the source publication had a published CRPI. Of 6926 references to a source publication in these citing articles, for 3925 (57%) the source article had a published CRPI, while for 3001 (43%) it did not. Of these 3925 references, 3688 were in citing articles published before the source article CRPI was published. 166 citing articles containing 198 references to source publications were published after the corresponding source article CRPI was published (range 1-5 such references/article; 19/166 (11%) articles had >1 reference). In summary, many articles cite retracted publications, with the majority of these references occurring before the retraction. However, very few publications assess the impact of the retracted citations, even though the findings of many might be altered, at least in part, by removal of the retracted citation.

Continued post-retraction citation of a fraudulent clinical trial report, 11 years after it was retracted for falsifying data

This paper presents a case study of long-term post-retraction citation to falsified clinical trial data (Matsuyama et al. in Chest 128(6):3817–3827, 2005. 10.1378/chest.128.6.3817), demonstrating problems with how the current digital library environment communicates retraction status. Eleven years after its retraction, the paper continues to be cited positively and uncritically to support a medical nutrition intervention, without mention of its 2008 retraction for falsifying data. To date no high quality clinical trials reporting on the efficacy of omega-3 fatty acids on reducing inflammatory markers have been published. Our paper uses network analysis, citation context analysis, and retraction status visibility analysis to illustrate the potential for extended propagation of misinformation over a citation network, updating and extending a case study of the first 6 years of post-retraction citation (Fulton et al. in Publications 3(1):7–26, 2015. 10.3390/publications3010017). The current study covers 148 direct citations from 2006 through 2019 and their 2542 second-generation citations and assesses retraction status visibility of the case study paper and its retraction notice on 12 digital platforms as of 2020. The retraction is not mentioned in 96% (107/112) of direct post-retraction citations for which we were able to conduct citation context analysis. Over 41% (44/107) of direct post-retraction citations that do not mention the retraction describe the case study paper in detail, giving a risk of diffusing misinformation from the case paper. We analyze 152 second-generation citations to the most recent 35 direct citations (2010–2019) that do not mention the retraction but do mention methods or results of the case paper, finding 23 possible diffusions of misinformation from these non-direct citations to the case paper. Link resolving errors from databases show a significant challenge in a reader reaching the retraction notice via a database search. Only 1/8 databases (and 1/9 database records) consistently resolved the retraction notice to its full-text correctly in our tests. Although limited to evaluation of a single case (N = 1), this work demonstrates how retracted research can continue to spread and how the current information environment contributes to this problem.

The unfortunately long life of some retracted biomedical research publications

In 2005 the scientific misconduct case of a noted researcher concluded with, among other things, the retraction of 10 papers. However, these articles continue to be cited at relatively high rates. The objectives of this paper are: 1) to track the retraction process of these papers, 2) to assess the impact of retraction on subsequent citation rates of these papers, and 3) to compare the citation history of these retracted articles and five other high-profile retraction cases. For objective 1, all five articles to be retracted were retracted and of the four to be corrected, two were retracted and two were corrected. Eight PubMed and journal sites were identified where retraction messages could be conveyed; the number of retraction messages averaged 3.4 ± 2.5 for these nine articles. For objective 2, an absolute "cleansing" did not occur. While it initially appears there was a relative "cleansing," as citation rates for these articles did decrease after retraction, the reductions in citation rates for these articles (-28%) were the same as those for matched nonretracted publications both by the same author (-28%) and by another investigator (-29%) over the same time frame. Relative to objective 3, the results for this case are quite different from the five other cases assessing this issue, perhaps because of this investigator's "citation inertia" as a result of the small percentage of his papers that were retracted and the large number of citations to the articles before their retraction and to all of his published articles.NEW & NOTEWORTHY The scientific misconduct and fraud case of a noted exercise physiology researcher was concluded ~15 yr ago, and one the of the results was the retraction of 10 published manuscripts. However, based on a number of comparisons to that same author's and another investigator's citation histories for similar articles, the citation histories for these retracted articles appear to not have been affected whatsoever in the subsequent 15 yr.

Medical science faces the post-truth era: a plea for the grassroot values of science

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Science and its public perception are compromised by scientific fraud and predatory journals, and also by the general erosion of the meaning of truth in the so-called post-truth era. These developments have significant influence on scientific medicine and their impact on the public discourse. The purpose of this article is to show how fake science, and also the uncritical dissemination of compromised results in public and social media, threatens scientific medicine.

RECENT FINDINGS

As social media rises to the preferred source of information of ever larger parts of the modern societies, the dissemination of falsified scientific results within the communities is almost unstoppable. With growing numbers of predatory journals and repetitive cases of fake science, the risk of publication of false results increases. Due to the underlying mechanisms of the post-truth era and social media, these compromised results find their way to the public discourse and continue to be disseminated even when they were, beyond all doubt, proven to be a lie. In medical sciences, dissemination of falsified results directly threats health and life of patients.

SUMMARY

In the post-truth era, publication of false results in predatory journals and by fraudulent authors become even more dangerous for the health and life of patients, as their dissemination via new social media is nearly unstoppable and in the public perception truth is losing its meaning. The scientific community has implemented specific counter-measures to minimize the chances of false results being published. However, it is even more important that every participant in the scientific process assumes the responsibility according to his or her role. An orientation towards the values that have constituted and formed science is helpful in fulfilling this responsibility.

An investigation into the impact and implications of published papers from retracted research: systematic search of affected literature

OBJECTIVE

Analyses of the impact of a body of clinical trial reports subject to research misconduct have been few. Our objective was to examine the impact on clinically relevant research of a group of researchers' trial reports ('affected trial reports') affected by research misconduct, and whether identification of misconduct invoked a reappraisal.

DESIGN

In 2016, we used five databases and search engines to identify 'citing publications', that is, guidelines, systematic and other reviews, and clinical trials citing any of 12 affected trial reports, published 1998-2011, eventually retracted for research misconduct. The affected trial reports were assessed more likely to have had impact because they had hip fracture outcomes and were in journals with impact factor >4. Two authors assessed whether findings of the citing publications would change if the affected trial reports were removed. In 2018, we searched for evidence that the citing publications had undertaken a reassessment as a result of the potential influence of the affected trial reports.

RESULTS

By 2016 the affected trial reports were cited in 1158 publications, including 68 systematic reviews, meta-analyses, narrative reviews, guidelines and clinical trials. We judged that 13 guidelines, systematic or other reviews would likely change their findings if the affected trial reports were removed, and in another eight it was unclear if findings would change. By 2018, only one of the 68 citing publications, a systematic review, appeared to have undertaken a reassessment, which led to a correction.

CONCLUSIONS

We found evidence that this group of affected trial reports distorted the evidence base. Correction of these distortions is slow, uncoordinated and inconsistent. Unless there is a rapid, systematic, coordinated approach by bibliographic databases, authors, journals and publishers to mitigate the impact of known cases of research misconduct, patients, other researchers and their funders may continue to be adversely affected.

Industry funding effect on positive results of probiotic use in the management of acute diarrhea: a systematized review

Several investigations have found that industry-funded studies tend to inform results favoring the sponsored products. The pressure to demonstrate that a drug or a product causes a favorable outcome may result in investigation biases from industry-funded research. One example of this could be found in the probiotic research funded by the industry. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of industry funding on positive outcomes of the use of probiotics in the management of acute diarrhea. A systematized review of clinical trials on the use of probiotics in the management of acute diarrhea was performed. The associations between the source of funding, clinical outcomes, probiotic genus, and quality of the study were assessed using the χ-test and Fisher's exact test. Sixty-six clinical trials were included; 27 were industry funded, 18 were nonindustry funded, and 21 did not disclose their funding source. There were 48 positive and 30 negative clinical outcomes. There was no significant association between the source of funding and clinical outcomes (P=0.491). No association between the rest of the studied variables and outcomes was observed either (P>0.05). In clinical trials on the use of probiotics in the management of acute diarrhea, the source of funding has no influence on positive clinical outcomes.

Reliable novelty: New should not trump true

Although a case can be made for rewarding scientists for risky, novel science rather than for incremental, reliable science, novelty without reliability ceases to be science. The currently available evidence suggests that the most prestigious journals are no better at detecting unreliable science than other journals. In fact, some of the most convincing studies show a negative correlation, with the most prestigious journals publishing the least reliable science. With the credibility of science increasingly under siege, how much longer can we afford to reward novelty at the expense of reliability? Here, I argue for replacing the legacy journals with a modern information infrastructure that is governed by scholars. This infrastructure would allow renewed focus on scientific reliability, with improved sort, filter, and discovery functionalities, at massive cost savings. If these savings were invested in additional infrastructure for research data and scientific code and/or software, scientific reliability would receive additional support, and funding woes-for, e.g., biological databases-would be a concern of the past.

Assessing the impact of retraction on the citation of randomized controlled trial reports: an interrupted time-series analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of retraction on the citation of randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

We used an interrupted time-series with matched controls. PubMed, CINHAL, Google and the Retraction Watch Database were searched. We identified retracted publications reporting the results of randomized controlled trials involving human participants with two years of available data before and after retraction. We obtained monthly citation counts across all articles for the 24 months before and after retraction, from Web of Science. We used a Poisson segmented regression to detect changes in the level and trend of citation following retraction. We also undertook a matched control analysis of unretracted randomized controlled trials and a sensitivity analysis to account for cases of large-scale, well-advertised fraud.

RESULTS

We identified 387 retracted randomized controlled trial reports, of which 218 (56.3%) were included in the interrupted time-series analysis. A reduction of 22.9% (95% CI 4.0% to 38.2%, p = 0.02) was observed in the number of citations in the month after retraction, and a further reduction of 1.9% (95% CI 0.4% to 3.5%, p = 0.02) per month in the following 24 months, relative to the expected trend. There was no evidence of a statistically significant reduction among the matched controls. Authors with a large number of retractions saw a 48.2% reduction at the time of retraction (95% CI 17.7% to 67.3%, p = 0.01). Other cases had a more gradual reduction with no change at the time of retraction and a 1.8% reduction per month in the following 24 months (95% CI 0.2% to 3.4%, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Retractions of randomized controlled trial reports can be effective in reducing citations. Other factors, such as the scale of the retractions and media attention, may play a role in the effectiveness of the reduction.

The visibility of scientific misconduct: A review of the literature on retracted journal articles

Retractions of scientific articles are becoming the most relevant institution for making sense of scientific misconduct. An increasing number of retracted articles, mainly attributed to misconduct, is currently providing a new empirical basis for research about scientific misconduct. This article reviews the relevant research literature from an interdisciplinary context. Furthermore, the results from these studies are contextualized sociologically by asking how scientific misconduct is made visible through retractions. This study treats retractions as an emerging institution that renders scientific misconduct visible, thus, following up on the sociology of deviance and its focus on visibility. The article shows that retractions, by highlighting individual cases of misconduct and general policies for preventing misconduct while obscuring the actors and processes through which retractions are effected, produce highly fragmented patterns of visibility. These patterns resemble the bifurcation in current justice systems.

Retracted Publications in Orthopaedics: Prevalence, Characteristics, and Trends

BACKGROUND

Retracted publications are a crucial, yet overlooked, issue in the scientific community. The purpose of our study was to assess the prevalence, characteristics, and trends of retracted publications in the field of orthopaedics.

METHODS

Five databases were utilized to identify retracted publications in orthopaedics. The cited articles were assessed for various characteristics, including reason for retraction, based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and trends over time.

RESULTS

From 1984 to June 4, 2016, 59 of 229,502 orthopaedic publications were retracted (3 per 10,000 articles). There was a spike in the prevalence (22 of 59) of retracted articles in 2015. When compared with the total number of retracted publications identified through PubMed, the field of orthopaedics represented 1.4% of all retracted publications. The original version of 47 of these 59 retracted publications was still available on the respective journal's web site; 14 (30%) of these were not noted as having been retracted. The mean time from electronic publication to retraction was 19.4 ± 23.3 months. The mean number of citations of a retracted publication after the date of retraction was 9.3 ± 19.3. Reasons for retraction included plagiarism (32%), misconduct (27%), redundant publication (22%), miscalculation or experimental error (8%), and unethical research (0%); the reason for retraction was not stated for 10% of the publications. There was no correlation between a journal's impact factor and the mean number of months to retraction (p = 0.564).

CONCLUSIONS

While uncommon, the retraction of publications within the field of orthopaedics may be increasing. The most often cited reasons for retraction were plagiarism, misconduct, and redundant publication. Retracted articles continue to be cited in the literature after retraction.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Greater awareness of the COPE guidelines within the orthopaedic community and more efficient means to prevent the citation of retracted articles are needed.

Post retraction citations in context: a case study

This study examines the nature of citations to articles that were retracted in 2014. Out of 987 retracted articles found in ScienceDirect, an Elsevier full text database, we selected all articles that received more than 10 citations between January 2015 and March 2016. Since the retraction year was known for only about 83% of the retracted articles, we chose to concentrate on recent citations, that for certain appeared after the cited paper was retracted. Overall, we analyzed 238 citing documents and identified the context of each citation as positive, negative or neutral. Our results show that the vast majority of citations to retracted articles are positive despite of the clear retraction notice on the publisher's platform and regardless of the reason for retraction. Positive citations can be also seen to articles that were retracted due to ethical misconduct, data fabrication and false reports. In light of these results, we listed some recommendations for publishers that could potentially minimize the referral to retracted studies as valid.

Ethical publishing in intensive care medicine: A narrative review

Ethical standards in the context of scientific publications are increasingly gaining attention. A narrative review of the literature concerning publication ethics was conducted as found in PubMed, Google Scholar, relevant news articles, position papers, websites and other sources. The Committee on Publication Ethics has produced guidelines and schedules for the handling of problem situations that have been adopted by professional journals and publishers worldwide as guidelines to authors. The defined requirements go beyond the disclosure of conflicts of interest or the prior registration of clinical trials. Recommendations to authors, editors and publishers of journals and research institutions were formulated with regard to issues of authorship, double publications, plagiarism, and conflicts of interest, with special attention being paid to unethical research behavior and data falsification. This narrative review focusses on ethical publishing in intensive care medicine. As scientific misconduct with data falsification damage patients and society, especially if fraudulent studies are considered important or favor certain therapies and downplay their side effects, it is important to ensure that only studies are published that have been carried out with highest integrity according to predefined criteria. For that also the peer review process has to be conducted in accordance with the highest possible scientific standards and making use of available modern information technology. The review provides the current state of recommendations that are considered to be most relevant particularly in the field of intensive care medicine.

Research practices and assessment of research misconduct

This article discusses the responsible conduct of research, questionable research practices, and research misconduct. Responsible conduct of research is often defined in terms of a set of abstract, normative principles, professional standards, and ethics in doing research. In order to accommodate the normative principles of scientific research, the professional standards, and a researcher’s moral principles, transparent research practices can serve as a framework for responsible conduct of research. We suggest a “prune-and-add” project structure to enhance transparency and, by extension, responsible conduct of research. Questionable research practices are defined as practices that are detrimental to the research process. The prevalence of questionable research practices remains largely unknown, and reproducibility of findings has been shown to be problematic. Questionable practices are discouraged by transparent practices because practices that arise from them will become more apparent to scientific peers. Most effective might be preregistrations of research design, hypotheses, and analyses, which reduce particularism of results by providing an a priori research scheme. Research misconduct has been defined as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP), which is clearly the worst type of research practice. Despite it being clearly wrong, it can be approached from a scientific and legal perspective. The legal perspective sees research misconduct as a form of white-collar crime. The scientific perspective seeks to answer the following question: “Were results invalidated because of the misconduct?” We review how misconduct is typically detected, how its detection can be improved, and how prevalent it might be. Institutions could facilitate detection of data fabrication and falsification by implementing data auditing. Nonetheless, the effect of misconduct is pervasive: many retracted articles are still cited after the retraction has been issued.

Main points

Researchers systematically evaluate their own conduct as more responsible than colleagues, but not as responsible as they would like.

Transparent practices, facilitated by the Open Science Framework, help embody scientific norms that promote responsible conduct.

Questionable research practices harm the research process and work counter to the generally accepted scientific norms, but are hard to detect.

Research misconduct requires active scrutiny of the research community because editors and peer-reviewers do not pay adequate attention to detecting this. Tips are given on how to improve your detection of potential problems.