Governing knowledge in the scientific community: Exploring the role of retractions in biomedicine

Reckoning With Our Past and Righting Our Future: Report From the Behavior Therapy Task Force on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity/Expression Change Efforts (SOGIECEs)

Sexual orientation and gender identity/expression change efforts (SOGIECEs) are discredited practices that are associated with serious negative effects and incompatible with modern standards for clinical practice. Despite evidence linking SOGIECEs with serious iatrogenic effects, and despite support for LGBTQ+-affirmative care alternatives, SOGIECE practices persist. In the 1970s and 1980s, Behavior Therapy published articles testing and/or endorsing SOGIECEs, thereby contributing to their overall development, acceptance, and use. The Behavior Therapy Task Force on SOGIECEs was assembled to conduct a rigorous review of the SOGIECE articles published in Behavior Therapy and to decide whether, and what, formal action(s) should be taken on these articles. This report provides a detailed review of the historic SOGIECE literature published in Behavior Therapy and outlines the Task Force's deliberative and democratic processes resulting in actions to: (1) add prominent advisory information to k = 24 SOGIECE papers in the form of digital "black box" disclaimers that caution readers that the SOGIECE practices tested or described in these papers are inconsistent with modern standards, (2) offset organizational financial benefits from the publication of these papers, and (3) promote LGBTQ+-affirmative practices. SOGIECEs are not the only concerning practices across the field's history, and the pages of today's scientific journals include practices that will be at odds with tomorrow's moral standards and ethical guidelines. This report calls for precautionary measures and editorial safeguards to minimize the future likelihood and impact of problematic published scholarship, including the need to fully include those with relevant lived experiences in all aspects of clinical science and peer review.

Evolution and characterization of health sciences paper retractions in Brazil and Portugal

The retraction of health sciences publications is a growing concern. To understand the patterns in a particular country-context and design specific measures to address the problem, it is important to describe and characterize retractions. We aimed to assess the evolution of health science retractions in Brazil and Portugal and to describe their features. We conducted a cross-sectional study including all health sciences retracted articles with at least one author affiliated to a Portuguese or Brazilian institution identified through Retraction Watch database. A total of 182 retracted articles were identified. The number of retractions increased over time, but the proportion related to the whole of publications remained stable. A total of 50.0% and 60.8% of the Portuguese and Brazilian retracted articles, respectively, were published in first and second quartile journals. Scientific misconduct accounted for 60.1% and 55.9% of retractions in Brazil and Portugal. In both countries, the most frequent cause of misconduct was plagiarism. The time from publication to retraction decreases as the journal quartile increases. The retraction of health sciences articles did not decrease over time in Brazil and Portugal. There is a need to develop strategies aimed at preventing, monitoring and managing scientific misconduct according to the country context.

The impact of "Five No's for Publication" on academic misconduct

China initiated the "Five No's for Publication" in December 2015 as a response to rising incidents of retraction. Use the number of retracted publications and their original publication time as proxies to investigate the effect of the Five No's policy on academic misconduct. We searched the Retraction Watch Database for research articles published by Chinese scholars from 1 March 2010 to 29 February 2020. The short- and long-term trends of the number of publications were presented by conducting an interrupted time series analysis in quarterly time units. Of 4,215 retracted papers with Chinese authors, 2,881 involving academic misconduct were identified. In the first quarter (12.01.2015-02.29.2016) after the implementation of the Five No's, an average reduction of 55.80 (p < 0.001) publications that involve academic misconduct was observed, although there was an increase in the trend of publications of 3.34 per quarter (p < 0.01) in the long run (12.01.2015-02.29.2020), relative to the pre-intervention period (03.01.2010-11.30.2015). The validity of these results was further supported by three different robustness checks. China's government should strengthen enforcement, promote education, and improve the scientific evaluation system to consolidate the influence of the Five No's policy and foster an ethical research environment.

Article retraction rates in selected MeSH term categories in PubMed published between 2010 and 2020

BACKGROUND

Academic article retractions occur across all disciplines, though few studies have examined the association between research topics and retraction rates.

OBJECTIVES

We assessed and compared the rate of retraction across several important clinical research topics.

METHODS

Information about the number of publications, the number of retractions, the retraction rate, and the time to retraction was collected for articles identified by 15 Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms. These articles were published between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2020. The searches took place between 18 September 2021 and 24 October 2021. The MeSH terms were selected based on our clinical experience with the expectation that there will be multiple publications during the timeframe to use for the searches. Additional topics were selected based on the frequency of controversy in the public media and were identified by the Altmetric Top 100 report.

RESULTS

The mean number of publications for all categories was 181,975 ± 332,245; the median number of publications was 67,991 [Q1, Q3; 31951.5, 138,981.5]. The mean number of retractions was 100.3 ± 251.3, and the median number of retractions was 22 [Q1, Q3; 6.5, 53]. The mean time to retraction ranged from 114 days to 1,409.5 days; the median was 857.3 days [Q1, Q3; 684.7, 1098.6], depending on the topic. The various MeSH term categories used in this study had significant differences in retraction rate and time to retraction. The "Neoplasms" category had the highest total number of retractions (993) and one of the highest retraction rates (75.4 per 100,000 publications).

DISCUSSION

All PubMed categories analyzed in this study had retracted articles. The median time to retraction was 857 days. The long delays in some categories could contribute to potentially misleading information which might have adverse effects on clinical decisions in patient care and on research design.

CONCLUSION

Rate of retraction varies across research topics and further studies are needed to explore this relationship.

Surveillance of clinical research integrity in medically assisted reproduction: a systematic review of retracted publications

Background and purpose

Retraction is a significant consequence of scientific research, resulting from various factors ranging from unintentional errors to intentional misconduct. Previous reviews on retracted publications in obstetrics and gynecology have identified "article duplication," "plagiarism," and "fabricated results" as the main reasons for retraction. However, the extent of retracted articles in the literature on medically assisted reproduction (MAR) remains unclear. This systematic review aimed to assess the number and characteristics of retracted articles in the field of MAR.

Methods

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed for this study. A comprehensive literature search was conducted on the PubMed database from 1993 to February 2023, limited to English articles and including all 283 terms from the International Glossary on Infertility and Fertility Care. To identify retracted studies, a specific query combining the 283 terms from the glossary with a retraction-related keyword was used. Only studies focused on MAR and involving human subjects were included.

Results

The electronic search yielded a total of 523,067 records in the field of infertility and fertility care. Among these, a total of 2,458 records were identified as retracted. The citation retraction rate was found to be 0.47% (2,458/523,067; 95%CI 0.45-0.49), and the citation retraction rate for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was 0.20% (93/45,616; 95%CI 0.16-0.25). A total of 39 retracted articles specifically related to MAR were identified. Among these, 41.0% were RCTs (n = 16), 15.4% were reviews (n = 6), and 10.3% were retrospective studies (n = 4) or prospective studies (n = 4). Most of the retractions occurred shortly after publication, with "plagiarism" being the most common reason for retraction, followed by "duplicate publication."

Discussion

The issue of retraction exists within the field of infertility and fertility care, including MAR. Our findings indicate that scientific misconduct, particularly plagiarism and duplicate publication, are the primary causes of retraction in MAR. Despite finding that the proportion of retracted citations is low, promoting scientific integrity should be a priority. The consequences of article retractions have significant implications for patient care and the scientific community. Hence, it is crucial to prioritize thorough screening of manuscripts before publication to maintain research integrity.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=185769, PROSPERO, identifier: CRD42020185769.

Retractions and Rewards in Science: An Open Question for Reviewers and Funders

In recent years, the changing landscape for the conduct and assessment of research and of researchers has increased scrutiny of the reward systems of science. In this context, correcting the research record, including retractions, has gained attention and space in the publication system. One question is the possible influence of retractions on the careers of scientists. It might be assessed, for example, through citation patterns or productivity rates for authors who have had one or more retractions. This is an emerging issue today, with growing discussions in the research community about impact. We have explored the influence of retractions on grant review criteria. Here, we present results of a qualitative study exploring the views of a group of six representatives of funding agencies from different countries and of a follow-up survey of 224 reviewers in the US. These reviewers have served on panels for the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and/or a few other agencies. We collected their perceptions about the influence of self-correction of the literature and of retractions on grant decisions. Our results suggest that correcting the research record, for honest error or misconduct, is perceived as an important mechanism to strengthen the reliability of science, among most respondents. However, retractions and self-correcting the literature at large are not factors influencing grant review, and dealing with retractions in reviewing grants is an open question for funders.

Why Research Retraction Due to Misconduct Should Be Stigmatized

Many of us may remember Hester Prynne, the protagonist of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter, who was stigmatized for conceiving a daughter out of wedlock [...]

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.

Do retraction practices work effectively? Evidence from citations of psychological retracted articles

Scientific retraction practices are intended to help purge the continued use of flawed research and assist in maintaining the integrity, credibility and quality of scientific literature. However, the practical effect of retraction is still vague and needs to be further explored. In this study, we analysed the citation counts and sentiments (positive/negative) of retracted articles in psychology journals from Web of Science to explore the effect of retraction. Causal inference strategies were used to measure the net effect of retractions on citation. Results show that the retraction practices induced the citation counts to reduce as expected. However, the proportion of negative citations also decreased because of retraction, indicating an unsatisfied effect. The retraction practice of high-impact factors and open access journals was more effective than other journals. The study integrated an understanding of the dissemination of erroneous publications and provided implications for liabilities involved in the whole retraction process.

Dynamics of cross-platform attention to retracted papers

Scientific retraction has been on the rise recently. Retracted papers are frequently discussed online, enabling the broad dissemination of potentially flawed findings. Our analysis spans a nearly 10-y period and reveals that most papers exhaust their attention by the time they get retracted, meaning that retractions cannot curb the online spread of problematic papers. This is striking as we also find that retracted papers are pervasive across mediums, receiving more attention after publication than nonretracted papers even on curated platforms, such as news outlets and knowledge repositories. Interestingly, discussions on social media express more criticism toward subsequently retracted results and may thus contain early signals related to unreliable work.

Retracted papers often circulate widely on social media, digital news, and other websites before their official retraction. The spread of potentially inaccurate or misleading results from retracted papers can harm the scientific community and the public. Here, we quantify the amount and type of attention 3,851 retracted papers received over time in different online platforms. Comparing with a set of nonretracted control papers from the same journals with similar publication year, number of coauthors, and author impact, we show that retracted papers receive more attention after publication not only on social media but also, on heavily curated platforms, such as news outlets and knowledge repositories, amplifying the negative impact on the public. At the same time, we find that posts on Twitter tend to express more criticism about retracted than about control papers, suggesting that criticism-expressing tweets could contain factual information about problematic papers. Most importantly, around the time they are retracted, papers generate discussions that are primarily about the retraction incident rather than about research findings, showing that by this point, papers have exhausted attention to their results and highlighting the limited effect of retractions. Our findings reveal the extent to which retracted papers are discussed on different online platforms and identify at scale audience criticism toward them. In this context, we show that retraction is not an effective tool to reduce online attention to problematic papers.

Response-Corruption, Trust, and Professional Regulation

In their 2018 article in the Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, Little, Lipworth, and Kerridge unpack the concept of corruption and clarify the mechanisms that foster corruption and allow it to persist, noting that organizations are "corruptogenic." To address the "so-what" question, I draw on research about trust and trustworthiness, emphasizing that a person's well-being and sense of security require trust to be present at both the individual and organizational levels-which is not possible in an environment where corruption and misconduct prevail. I highlight similarities in Little et al.'s framing of corruption to the persistent problem of scientific misconduct in research and publishing. I acknowledge the challenges in stemming corruption in science and medicine and conclude with a discussion about the need to reinvigorate a web of stakeholders to actively engage in professional regulation.

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.

Research ethics: a profile of retractions from world class universities

This study aims to profile the scientific retractions published in journals indexed in the Web of Science database from 2010 to 2019, from researchers at the top 20 World Class Universities according to the Times Higher Education global ranking of 2020. Descriptive statistics, Pearson's correlation coefficient, and simple linear regression were used to analyze the data. Of the 330 analyzed retractions, Harvard University had the highest number of retractions and the main reason for retraction was data results. We conclude that the universities with a higher ranking tend to have a lower rate of retraction.

The Effects of Anti-corruption Campaign on Research Grant Reimbursement: Regression Discontinuity Evidence from China

Integrity and research ethics are cherished institutions in academic world. Although most societies have rules and codes that govern ethical conducts in research, few studies have provided quantitative evidence on the impacts of these regulations and codes on the behaviors of researchers. In the context of a nationwide anti-corruption campaign in China, this paper evaluates the changes of principal investigators' reimbursement behavior in a leading university when new reimbursement policies were introduced. Utilizing a novel grant dataset and a regression discontinuity design, we find that the new policies lowered PIs' monthly average amount of reimbursement from research grants by 35%, which can be interpreted as a reduction in grant misuse. Following speculations we argue that institutionalizing orchestrated efforts on grant management, payroll systems, and research integrity education is in the right direction toward building China into a true scientific power.

Does retraction after misconduct have an impact on citations? A pre-post study

Background

Retracted articles continue to be cited after retraction, and this could have consequences for the scientific community and general population alike. This study was conducted to analyse the association of retraction on citations received by retracted papers due to misconduct using two-time frames: during a postretraction period equivalent to the time the article had been in print before retraction; and during the total postretraction period.

Methods

Quasiexperimental, pre–post evaluation study. A total of 304 retracted original articles and literature reviews indexed in MEDLINE fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Articles were required to have been published in a journal indexed in MEDLINE from January 2013 through December 2015 and been retracted between January 2014 and December 2016. The main outcome was the number of citations received before and after retraction. Results were broken down by journal quartile according to impact factor and the most cited papers during the preretraction period were specifically analysed.

Results

There was an increase in postretraction citations when compared with citations received preretraction. There were some exceptions however: first, citations received by articles published in first-quartile journals decreased immediately after retraction (p<0.05), only to increase again after some time had elapsed; and second, postretraction citations decreased significantly in the case of articles that had received many citations before their retraction (p<0.05).

Conclusions

The results indicate that retraction of articles has no association on citations in the long term, since the retracted articles continue to be cited, thus circumventing their retraction.

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.

How do academia and society react to erroneous or deceitful claims? The case of retracted articles’ recognition

Researchers give credit to peer-reviewed, and thus, credible publications through citations. Despite a rigorous reviewing process, certain articles undergo retraction due to disclosure of their ethical or scientific deficiencies. It is, therefore, important to understand how society and academia react to the erroneous or deceitful claims and purge the science of their unreliable results. Applying a matched-pairs research design, this study examined a sample of medicine-related retracted and non-retracted articles matched by their content similarity. The regression analysis revealed similarities in obsolescence trends of the retracted and non-retracted groups. The Generalized Estimating Equations showed that citations are affected by the retraction status, life after retraction, life cycle and the journals’ previous reputation, with the two formers being the strongest in positively predicting the citations. The retracted papers obtain fewer citations either before or after retraction, implying academia’s watchful reaction to the low-quality papers even before official announcement of their fallibility. They exhibit an equal or higher social recognition level regarding Tweets and Blog Mentions, while a lower status regarding Mendeley Readership. This could signify social users’ sensibility regarding scientific quality since they probably publicise the retraction and warn against the retracted items in their tweets or blogs, while avoiding recording them in their Mendeley profiles. Further scrutiny is required to gain insight into the sensibility, if any, about scientific quality. The study’s originality relies on matching the retracted and non-retracted papers with their topics and neutralising variations in their citation potentials. It is also the first study comparing the groups’ social impacts.

Retraction: The "Other Face" of Research Collaboration?

The last two decades have witnessed the rising prevalence of both co-publishing and retraction. Focusing on research collaboration, this paper utilizes a unique dataset to investigate factors contributing to retraction probability and elapsed time between publication and retraction. Data analysis reveals that the majority of retracted papers are multi-authored and that repeat offenders are collaboration prone. Yet, all things being equal, collaboration, in and of itself, does not increase the likelihood of producing flawed or fraudulent research, at least in the form of retraction. That holds for all retractions and also retractions due to falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism (FFP). The research also finds that publications with authors from elite universities are less likely to be retracted, which is particularly true for retractions due to FFP. China stands out with the fastest retracting speed compared to other countries. Possible explanations, limitations, and policy implications are also discussed.

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.

Undergraduate Disabled Students as Knowledge Producers including Researchers: A Missed Topic in Academic Literature

Research experience is beneficial for undergraduate students for many reasons. For example, it is argued in academic literature and in reports produced by various organizations that engage with science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education and science education that undergraduate research experience increases the graduation rate in STEM disciplines as well as the amount of students thinking about STEM careers. As such, being researchers should also be of benefit to undergraduate disabled students in all disciplines including STEM education. However, given that undergraduate disabled students encounter many problems within post-secondary education, including STEM education, undergraduate disabled students might encounter problems in becoming researchers. Policies are to be guided by knowledge and evidence. However, knowledge and evidence deficits exist in relation to the lived experience of disabled people. Undergraduate disabled students could decrease the knowledge deficit as researchers and knowledge producers. The numbers of disabled academic faculty are judged as being too low and efforts are under way to increase the number of disabled academics. Increasing the number of undergraduate disabled researchers might increase the available pool of disabled students that pursue an academic career. Given the important role research performed by undergraduate disabled students can play and given that many studies highlight problems for disabled students in post-secondary education in general, we used a scoping review approach to investigate the coverage of undergraduate disabled students as knowledge producers, including as researchers, in the academic literature. Using various search strategies, we obtained 1299 initial hits. However, only 15 had relevant content. No study investigated how undergraduate disabled students select their research topics or how they are enticed to pursue research projects outside of a course-based framework. No study looked at the linkage between being an undergraduate disabled researcher and career choices or using the obtained research skills on the undergraduate level in one’s role as a community member after graduation. Our findings suggest an opportunity for many fields, ranging from disability studies to STEM education, to generate more empirical data and conceptual work on the role of undergraduate disabled students as knowledge producers including as researchers. Such studies could help to increase the numbers of undergraduate disabled students as knowledge producers, including researchers, which in turn could help to increase (a) the number of disabled academics, (b) the number of disabled students who perform research in the community after graduation, (c) the degree success of disabled students and (d) the knowledge available on the social situation of disabled people.

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.