Citation of retracted publications: A challenging problem

A randomized trial alerting authors, with or without coauthors or editors, that research they cited in systematic reviews and guidelines has been retracted

Retracted clinical trials may be influential in citing systematic reviews and clinical guidelines. We assessed the influence of 27 retracted trials on systematic reviews and clinical guidelines (citing publications), then alerted authors to these retractions. Citing publications were randomized to up to three e-mails to contact author with/without up to two coauthors, with/without the editor. After one year we assessed corrective action. We included 88 citing publications; 51% (45/88) had findings likely to change if retracted trials were removed, 87% (39/45) likely substantially. 51% (44/86) of contacted citing publications replied. Including three authors rather than the contact author alone was more likely to elicit a reply (P = 0.03). Including the editor did not increase replies (P = 0.66). Whether findings were judged likely to change, and size of the likely change, had no effect on response rate or action taken. One year after e-mails were sent only nine publications had published notifications. E-Mail alerts to authors and editors are inadequate to correct the impact of retracted publications in citing systematic reviews and guidelines. Changes to bibliographic and referencing systems, and submission processes are needed. Citing publications with retracted citations should be marked until authors resolve concerns.

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.

Prevalence, Characteristics, and Trends in Retracted Spine Literature: 2000-2023

BACKGROUND

Retraction of scientific publications is an important check on scientific misconduct and serves to maintain the integrity of the scientific literature. The present study aims to examine the prevalence, trends, and characteristics of retracted spine literature across basic science and clinical spine literature.

METHODS

Multiple databases were queried for retracted papers relating to spine or spine surgery, between January 2000 and May 2023. Of 112,668 publications initially identified, 125 were ultimately included in the present study following screening by 2 independent reviewers. Journal of origin, reasons for retraction, date of publication, date of retraction, impact factor of journal, countries of research origin, and study design were collected for each included publication.

RESULTS

Clinical studies were the most frequent type of retracted publication (n = 70). The most common reason for retraction was fraud (n = 58), followed by plagiarism (n = 22), and peer review process manipulation (n = 16). Impact factors ranged from 0.3 to 11.1 with a median of 3.75. Average months from publication to retraction across all studies was 37.5 months. The higher the journal impact factor, the longer the amount of time between publication and retraction (P = 0.01). China (n = 63) was the country of origin of more than half of all retracted spine publications.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of retractions has been increasing over the past 23 years, and clinical studies have been the most frequently retracted publication type. Clinicians treating disorders of the spine should be aware of these trends when relying on the clinical literature to inform their practice.

An analysis of retracted COVID-19 articles published by one medical publisher with multiple journals

Background

The retraction of medical articles periodically occurs in most medical journals and can involve multiple article types. These retractions are beneficial if they remove flawed or fraudulent information from the medical literature. However, retractions may also decrease confidence in the medical literature and require significant amounts of time by editors.

Methods

One publisher (Hindawi) announced that it will retract over 1200 articles. Given this, the PubMed database was searched to identify retracted publications on or related to COVID-19, and articles retracted by journals sponsored by the publisher Hindawi were then identified.

Results

These journals retracted 25 articles and, in most cases, did not provide an exact explanation about the particular problem(s) resulting in the retraction. The time to retraction was 468.7 ± 109.8 days (median =  446 days). These articles had 9.3 ± 9.9 citations.

Conclusion

Analysis of the titles and abstracts of the articles suggests that their removal from the medical literature would have limited effects on the near-term management decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, retraction of medical articles creates uncertainty in medical care and science and in the public regarding the validity of medical research and related publications and the level of professionalism of the individuals submitting these articles.

Publication retraction in spine surgery: a systematic review

PURPOSE

The number of articles retracted by peer-reviewed journals has increased in recent years. This study systematically reviews retracted publications in the spine surgery literature.

METHODS

A search of PubMed MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Retraction Watch, and the independent websites of 15 spine surgery-related journals from inception to September of 2022 was performed without language restrictions. PRISMA guidelines were followed with title/abstract screening, and full-text screening was conducted independently and in duplicate by two reviewers. Study characteristics and bibliometric information for each publication was extracted.

RESULTS

Of 250 studies collected from the search, 65 met the inclusion criteria. The most common reason for retraction was data error (n = 15, 21.13%), followed by plagiarism (n = 14, 19.72%) and submission to another journal (n = 14, 19.72%). Most studies pertained to degenerative pathologies of the spine (n = 32, 80.00%). Most articles had no indication of retraction in their manuscript (n = 24, 36.92%), while others had a watermark or notice at the beginning of the article. The median number of citations per retracted publication was 10.0 (IQR 3-29), and the median 4-year impact factor of the journals was 5.05 (IQR 3.20-6.50). On multivariable linear regression, the difference in years from publication to retraction (p = 0.0343, β = 6.56, 95% CI 0.50-12.62) and the journal 4-year impact factor (p = 0.0029, β = 7.47, 95% CI 2.66-12.28) were positively associated with the total number of citations per retracted publication. Most articles originated from China (n = 30, 46.15%) followed by the United States (n = 12, 18.46%) and Germany (n = 3, 4.62%). The most common study design was retrospective cohort studies (n = 14, 21.54%).

CONCLUSIONS

The retraction of publications has increased in recent years in spine surgery. Researchers consulting this body of literature should remain vigilant. Institutions and journals should collaborate to increase publication transparency and scientific integrity.

An analysis of retracted papers in Computer Science

CONTEXT

The retraction of research papers, for whatever reason, is a growing phenomenon. However, although retracted paper information is publicly available via publishers, it is somewhat distributed and inconsistent.

OBJECTIVE

The aim is to assess: (i) the extent and nature of retracted research in Computer Science (CS) (ii) the post-retraction citation behaviour of retracted works and (iii) the potential impact upon systematic reviews and mapping studies.

METHOD

We analyse the Retraction Watch database and take citation information from the Web of Science and Google scholar.

RESULTS

We find that of the 33,955 entries in the Retraction watch database (16 May 2022), 2,816 are classified as CS, i.e., ≈ 8%. For CS, 56% of retracted papers provide little or no information as to the reasons. This contrasts with 26% for other disciplines. There is also some disparity between different publishers, a tendency for multiple versions of a retracted paper to be available beyond the Version of Record (VoR), and for new citations long after a paper is officially retracted (median = 3; maximum = 18). Systematic reviews are also impacted with ≈ 30% of the retracted papers having one or more citations from a review.

CONCLUSIONS

Unfortunately, retraction seems to be a sufficiently common outcome for a scientific paper that we as a research community need to take it more seriously, e.g., standardising procedures and taxonomies across publishers and the provision of appropriate research tools. Finally, we recommend particular caution when undertaking secondary analyses and meta-analyses which are at risk of becoming contaminated by these problem primary studies.

Better guidance is needed for editorial expressions of concern

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

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

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

Do biodiversity monitoring citizen science surveys meet the core principles of open science practices?

Citizen science (CS), as an enabler of open science (OS) practices, is a low-cost and accessible method for data collection in biodiversity monitoring, which can empower and educate the public both on scientific research priorities and on environmental change. Where OS increases research transparency and scientific democratisation; if properly implemented, CS should do the same. Here, we present the findings of a systematic review exploring "openness" of CS in biodiversity monitoring. CS projects were scored between - 1 (closed) and 1 (open) on their adherence to defined OS principles: accessible data, code, software, publication, data management plans, and preregistrations. Openness scores per principle were compared to see where OS is more frequently utilised across the research process. The relationship between interest in CS and openness within the practice was also tested. Overall, CS projects had an average open score of 0.14. There was a significant difference in open scores between OS principles (p =  < 0.0001), where "open data" was the most adhered to practice compared to the lowest scores found in relation to preregistrations. The apparent level of interest in CS was not shown to correspond to a significant increase in openness within CS (p = 0.8464). These results reveal CS is not generally "open" despite being an OS approach, with implications for how the public can interact with the research that they play an active role in contributing to. The development of systematic recommendations on where and how OS can be implemented across the research process in citizen science projects is encouraged.

Is Psychological Science Self-Correcting? Citations Before and After Successful and Failed Replications

In principle, successful replications should enhance the credibility of scientific findings, and failed replications should reduce credibility. Yet it is unknown how replication typically affects the influence of research. We analyzed the citation history of 98 articles. Each was published by a selective psychology journal in 2008 and subjected to a replication attempt published in 2015. Relative to successful replications, failed replications reduced citations of replicated studies by only 5% to 9% on average, an amount that did not differ significantly from zero. Less than 3% of articles citing the original studies cited the replication attempt. It does not appear that replication failure much reduced the influence of nonreplicated findings in psychology. To increase the influence of replications, we recommend (a) requiring authors to cite replication studies alongside the individual findings and (b) enhancing reference databases and search engines to give higher priority to replication studies.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Analysis of Retracted Publications in The Biomedical Literature from Turkey

BACKGROUND

Retraction is a process for correcting the literature and provides a barrier to the dissemination of publications that include major faults or false-misleading data. The aim of this study was to examine the characteristics of retracted articles in the biomedical field sourced from Turkey.

METHODS

In this descriptive cross-sectional study, all retracted publications from Turkey on PubMed were listed without date restriction. Data covering the article title, authors, publication date, retraction date, time between publication and retraction dates (in months), journal, article type, country of the corresponding author, peer review timeline (in days), reason for retraction, and subject area of the retracted item were recorded. Citation data were obtained using the Scopus database. The altmetric attention scores of the articles were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 102 articles were listed and after the implementation of exclusion criteria, 86 articles were included for analysis. The first retracted article was published in 2000 (n = 1), while the most retracted articles were published in 2020 (n = 11). The median time lag between publication and retraction was 10.33 (0.73-144.06) months. The main factors causing retraction were plagiarism (n = 23), duplication (n = 22) and error (n = 17). The total number of citations was 695. A total of 224 citations were in the pre-retraction period and 471 citations were in the post-retraction period.

CONCLUSION

The retracted article counts showed a rising trend over the years. The leading causes of retraction for articles from Turkey were plagiarism, duplication, and error. It was found that the articles continued to be cited after the retraction. Researchers in Turkey should be educated on retraction, particularly plagiarism and duplication. Strategies should be developed to prevent articles from being cited after retraction.

Downstream retraction of preprinted research in the life and medical sciences

Retractions have been on the rise in the life and clinical sciences in the last decade, likely due to both broader accessibility of published scientific research and increased vigilance on the part of publishers. In this same period, there has been a greater than ten-fold increase in the posting of preprints by researchers in these fields. While this development has significantly accelerated the rate of research dissemination and has benefited early-career researchers eager to show productivity, it has also introduced challenges with respect to provenance tracking, version linking, and, ultimately, back-propagation of events such as corrigenda, expressions of concern, and retractions that occur on the journal-published version. The aim of this study was to understand the extent of this problem among preprint servers that routinely link their preprints to the corollary versions published in journals. To present a snapshot of the current state of downstream retractions of articles preprinted in three large preprint servers (Research Square, bioRxiv, and medRxiv), the DOIs of the journal-published versions linked to preprints were matched to entries in the Retraction Watch database. A total of 30 retractions were identified, representing only 0.01% of all content posted on these servers. Of these, 11 retractions were clearly noted by the preprint servers; however, the existence of a preprint was only acknowledged by the retracting journal in one case. The time from publication to retraction averaged 278 days, notably lower than the average for articles overall (839 days). In 70% of cases, retractions downstream of preprints were due-at least in part-to ethical or procedural misconduct. In 63% of cases, the nature of the retraction suggested that the conclusions were no longer reliable. Over time, the lack of propagation of critical information across the publication life cycle will pose a threat to the scholarly record and to scientific integrity. It is incumbent on preprint servers, publishers, and the systems that connect them to address these issues before their scale becomes untenable.

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.