Plagiarism and data falsification are the most common reasons for retracted publications in obstetrics and gynaecology

Exploring scientific misconduct in Morocco based on an analysis of plagiarism perception in a cohort of 1,220 researchers and students

Plagiarism is widely regarded as an issue of low- and middle-income countries because of several factors such as the lack of ethics policy and poor research training. In Morocco, plagiarism and its perception by academics has not been investigated on a large scale. In this study, we evaluated different aspects of plagiarism among scholars based on a 23-question cross-sectional survey. Factors associated with plagiarism were explored using contingency tables and logistic regression. The survey results covered all public universities (n=12) and included 1,220 recorded responses. The academic level was significantly associated with plagiarism (p<0.001). Having publication records was statistically associated with a reduced plagiarism (p=0.002). Notably, the ability of participants to correctly define plagiarism was also significantly associated with a reduced plagiarism misconduct (p<0.001). Unintentional plagiarism (p<0.001), time constraint to write an original text (p<0.001), and inability of participants to paraphrase (p<0.001) were associated factors with plagiarism. Moreover, participants that considered plagiarism as a serious issue in academic research had significantly committed less plagiarism (p<0.001). The current study showed that various actionable factors associated with plagiarism can be targeted by educational interventions, and therefore, it provided the rationale to build training programs on research integrity in Morocco.

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.

Retracted publications in autism research are mostly concerned with ethical misconduct

BACKGROUND

As the prevalence of autism appears to increase, more research to guide effective diagnosis and intervention practices is needed. Findings disseminated through peer-reviewed publications are critical, but the number of retractions continues to rise. An understanding of retracted publications is imperative to ensure the body of evidence is corrected and current.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this analysis were to summarize key characteristics of retracted publications in autism research, examine the length of time between publication and retraction, and assess the extent journals are adhering to publishing ethical guidelines for reporting retracted articles.

METHODS

We searched five databases through 2021 (PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Retraction Watch).

RESULTS

A total of 25 retracted articles were included in the analysis. Ethical misconduct accounted for the majority of retractions rather than scientific error. The shortest time to retraction was 2 months and the longest length was 144 months.

DISCUSSION

The time lag between publication and retraction since 2018 has improved considerably. Nineteen of the articles had retraction notices (76%), whereas six articles did not have a notice (24%).

CONCLUSION

These findings summarize errors of previous retractions and illuminate opportunities for researchers, journal publishers and librarians to learn from retracted publications.

The definition of research misconduct should be stated in the abstract when reporting research on research misconduct

Research integrity is the cornerstone for a reliable and trustworthy science. Research misconduct is classically defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism. To be considered as such, the action must have been committed with the intent to mislead or deceive. There are many other research misbehaviors such as duplication, fake-peer review or lack of disclosure of conflicts of interest, that are often included in the definition of research misconduct in codes, policies, and professional documents. The definition of research misconduct varies among countries and institutions, the seriousness and intentionality of the action. This variability is also present in research articles on the prevalence of research misconduct because it is common for each author to use a different definition, creating confusion for readers. We argue that the definition of research misconduct used in a study should be stated already in the abstract, particularly because not all publications are in open access, so that readers can fully understand what the study found concerning research misconduct without needing to have access to the full article.

Integrity of randomized clinical trials: Performance of integrity tests and checklists requires assessment

The integrity of randomized clinical trials (RCT) has become a concern owing to a recent rise in the number of retractions and the repercussions this has for evidence-based patient care. However, there is little research on the subject of RCT integrity assessment. Recent literature reviews have revealed that journals' authors' instructions concerning integrity and their investigation policies concerning allegations of misconduct are heterogeneous. The judicious use of integrity tests applied to RCT manuscripts is hampered by an absence of data concerning misconduct prevalence (pre-test probability), a failure to evaluate test performance (validity) and a lack of consensus over a gold standard (against which test accuracy can be evaluated). These deficiencies hinder the post-publication correction of RCT records, the integrity evaluations in systematic reviews of RCTs and the prospective application of preventive solutions in RCT peer-review and preprint assessment. Dealing with the current controversy about trustworthiness of RCT evidence requires a strong investment in research, reform and education concerning research integrity. The purpose of this review article is to highlight the current limitations in dealing with trial integrity-related concerns and to propose solutions to some of these issues.

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.

Statistical significance and publication reporting bias in abstracts of reproductive medicine studies

STUDY QUESTION

What were the frequency and temporal trends of reporting P-values and effect measures in the abstracts of reproductive medicine studies in 1990-2022, how were reported P-values distributed, and what proportion of articles that present with statistical inference reported statistically significant results, i.e. 'positive' results?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Around one in six abstracts reported P-values alone without effect measures, while the prevalence of effect measures, whether reported alone or accompanied by P-values, has been increasing, especially in meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials (RCTs); the reported P-values were frequently observed around certain cut-off values, notably at 0.001, 0.01, or 0.05, and among abstracts present with statistical inference (i.e. P-value, CIs, or significant terms), a large majority (77%) reported at least one statistically significant finding.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Publishing or reporting only results that show a 'positive' finding causes bias in evaluating interventions and risk factors and may incur adverse health outcomes for patients.

Despite efforts to minimize publication reporting bias in medical research, it remains unclear whether the magnitude and patterns of the bias have changed over time.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We studied abstracts of reproductive medicine studies from 1990 to 2022. The reproductive medicine studies were published in 23 first-quartile journals under the category of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and Reproductive Biology in Journal Citation Reports and 5 high-impact general medical journals (The Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, The BMJ, The New England Journal of Medicine, and PLoS Medicine). Articles without abstracts, animal studies, and non-research articles, such as case reports or guidelines, were excluded.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Automated text-mining was used to extract three types of statistical significance reporting, including P-values, CIs, and text description. Meanwhile, abstracts were text-mined for the presence of effect size metrics and Bayes factors. Five hundred abstracts were randomly selected and manually checked for the accuracy of automatic text extraction. The extracted statistical significance information was then analysed for temporal trends and distribution in general as well as in subgroups of study designs and journals.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

A total of 24 907 eligible reproductive medicine articles were identified from 170 739 screened articles published in 28 journals. The proportion of abstracts not reporting any statistical significance inference halved from 81% (95% CI, 76-84%) in 1990 to 40% (95% CI, 38-44%) in 2021, while reporting P-values alone remained relatively stable, at 15% (95% CI, 12-18%) in 1990 and 19% (95% CI, 16-22%) in 2021. By contrast, the proportion of abstracts reporting effect measures alone increased considerably from 4.1% (95% CI, 2.6-6.3%) in 1990 to 26% (95% CI, 23-29%) in 2021. Similarly, the proportion of abstracts reporting effect measures together with P-values showed substantial growth from 0.8% (95% CI, 0.3-2.2%) to 14% (95% CI, 12-17%) during the same timeframe. Of 30 182 statistical significance inferences, 56% (n = 17 077) conveyed statistical inferences via P-values alone, 30% (n = 8945) via text description alone such as significant or non-significant, 9.3% (n = 2820) via CIs alone, and 4.7% (n = 1340) via both CI and P-values. The reported P-values (n = 18 417), including both a continuum of P-values and dichotomized P-values, were frequently observed around common cut-off values such as 0.001 (20%), 0.05 (16%), and 0.01 (10%). Of the 13 200 reproductive medicine abstracts containing at least one statistical inference, 77% of abstracts made at least one statistically significant statement. Among articles that reported statistical inference, a decline in the proportion of making at least one statistically significant inference was only seen in RCTs, dropping from 71% (95% CI, 48-88%) in 1990 to 59% (95% CI, 42-73%) in 2021, whereas the proportion in the rest of study types remained almost constant over the years. Of abstracts that reported P-value, 87% (95% CI, 86-88%) reported at least one statistically significant P-value; it was 92% (95% CI, 82-97%) in 1990 and reached its peak at 97% (95% CI, 93-99%) in 2001 before declining to 81% (95% CI, 76-85%) in 2021.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

First, our analysis focused solely on reporting patterns in abstracts but not full-text papers; however, in principle, abstracts should include condensed impartial information and avoid selective reporting. Second, while we attempted to identify all types of statistical significance reporting, our text mining was not flawless. However, the manual assessment showed that inaccuracies were not frequent.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

There is a welcome trend that effect measures are increasingly reported in the abstracts of reproductive medicine studies, specifically in RCTs and meta-analyses. Publication reporting bias remains a major concern. Inflated estimates of interventions and risk factors could harm decisions built upon biased evidence, including clinical recommendations and planning of future research.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

No funding was received for this study. B.W.M. is supported by an NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437); B.W.M. reports research grants and travel support from Merck and consultancy from Merch and ObsEva. W.L. is supported by an NHMRC Investigator Grant (GNT2016729). Q.F. reports receiving a PhD scholarship from Merck. The other author has no conflict of interest to declare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Causes for Retraction in the Biomedical Literature: A Systematic Review of Studies of Retraction Notices

BACKGROUND

Many studies have evaluated the prevalence of different reasons for retraction in samples of retraction notices. We aimed to perform a systematic review of such empirical studies of retraction causes.

METHODS

The PubMed/MEDLINE database and the Embase database were searched in June 2023. Eligible studies were those containing sufficient data on the reasons for retraction across samples of examined retracted notices.

RESULTS

A 11,181 potentially eligible items were identified, and 43 studies of retractions were included in this systematic review. Studies limited to retraction notices of a specific subspecialty or country, journal/publication type are emerging since 2015. We noticed that the reasons for retraction are becoming more specific and more diverse. In a meta-analysis of 17 studies focused on different subspecialties, misconduct was responsible for 60% (95% confidence interval [CI], 53-67%) of all retractions while error and publication issues contributed to 17% (95% CI, 12-22%) and 9% (95% CI, 6-13%), respectively. The end year of the retraction period in all included studies and the proportion of misconduct presented a weak positive association (coefficient = 1.3% per year, P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Misconduct seems to be the most frequently recorded reason for retraction across empirical analyses of retraction notices, but other reasons are not negligible. Greater specificity of causes and standardization is needed in retraction notices.

Research integrity in randomized clinical trials: A scoping umbrella review

BACKGROUND

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are experiencing a crisis of confidence in their trustworthiness. Although a comprehensive literature search yielded several reviews on RCT integrity, an overarching overview is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

The authors undertook a scoping umbrella review of the research integrity literature concerning RCTs.

SEARCH STRATEGY AND SELECTION CRITERIA

Following prospective registration (https://osf.io/3ursn), two reviewers independently searched PubMed, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, without language or time restrictions, until November 2021. The authors included systematic reviews covering any aspect of research integrity throughout the RCT lifecycle.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The authors assessed methodological quality using a modified AMSTAR 2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) tool and collated the main findings.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 55 relevant reviews, summarizing 6001 studies (median per review, 63; range, 8-1106) from 1964 to 2021, had an overall critically low quality of 96% (53 reviews). Topics covered included general aspects (15%), design and approval (22%), conduct and monitoring (11%), reporting (38%), postpublication concerns (2%), and future research (13%). The most common integrity issues covered were ethics (18%) and transparency (18%).

CONCLUSIONS

Low-quality reviews identified various integrity issues across the RCT lifecycle, emphasizing the importance of high ethical standards and professionalism while highlighting gaps in the integrity landscape. Multistakeholder consensus is needed to develop specific RCT integrity standards.

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.

Standard quality criteria in retracted vs nonretracted obstetrical randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The number of retracted articles in peer-reviewed journals is increasing within the field of obstetrics. The most common reason for article retraction is scientific misconduct. Unfortunately, article retraction often occurs years after publication, allowing inaccurate data to be widely distributed to readers. There exists a great need for validated screening criteria for obstetric journals to use when reviewing randomized controlled trials for scientific misconduct.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare retracted obstetric randomized controlled trials with nonretracted randomized controlled trials with regard to their inclusion of 7 quality metrics: prospective trial registration, trial registration number, ethics approval statement, name of the approving committee, statement of informed consent, adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines, and a data sharing statement.

STUDY DESIGN

Obstetric randomized controlled trials retracted between 1995 and 2021 identified through Retraction Watch were compared with nonretracted randomized controlled trials published between 2018 and 2020 with regard to inclusion of the 7 quality metrics. The main outcome was the difference in prospective trial registration. Secondary outcomes were the percentage of individual criteria met and the screening performance of quality criteria in predicting article retraction.

RESULTS

A total of 150 randomized controlled trials were identified, of which 14 (9.3%) were retracted and 136 (90.7%) nonretracted. Retracted randomized controlled trials were less likely than nonretracted randomized controlled trials to be prospectively registered (14.3% vs 80.1%; P<.001). The median number of quality criteria met was lower for retracted randomized controlled trials (3 vs 6; P<.01). Using a cutoff of ≤4 criteria granted 85.7% (95% confidence interval, 57.2-98.2) sensitivity and 92.0% (95% confidence interval, 86.2-96.0) specificity in distinguishing the retracted randomized controlled trials from nonretracted studies.

CONCLUSION

Retracted obstetric randomized controlled trials were less likely to include the 7 quality metrics required on submission by most top obstetrics and gynecology journals.

Prediction and Construction of Energetic Materials Based on Machine Learning Methods

Energetic materials (EMs) are the core materials of weapons and equipment. Achieving precise molecular design and efficient green synthesis of EMs has long been one of the primary concerns of researchers around the world. Traditionally, advanced materials were discovered through a trial-and-error processes, which required long research and development (R&D) cycles and high costs. In recent years, the machine learning (ML) method has matured into a tool that compliments and aids experimental studies for predicting and designing advanced EMs. This paper reviews the critical process of ML methods to discover and predict EMs, including data preparation, feature extraction, model construction, and model performance evaluation. The main ideas and basic steps of applying ML methods are analyzed and outlined. The state-of-the-art research about ML applications in property prediction and inverse material design of EMs is further summarized. Finally, the existing challenges and the strategies for coping with challenges in the further applications of the ML methods are proposed.

Journal editors and publishers’ legal obligations with respect to medical research misconduct

As the burden of misconduct in medical research is increasingly recognised, questions have been raised about how best to address this problem. Whilst there are existing mechanisms for the investigation and management of misconduct in medical literature, they are inadequate to deal with the magnitude of the problem. Journal editors and publishers play an essential role in protecting the veracity of the medical literature. Whilst ethical guidance for journal editors and publishers is important, it is not as readily enforceable as legal obligations might be. This article questions the legal obligations that might exist for journal editors and publishing companies with respect to ensuring the veracity of the published literature. Ultimately, there is no enforceable legal obligation in Australia, the United Kingdom, or the United States. In light of this, more robust mechanisms are needed to deliver greater confidence and transparency in the investigative process, the management of concerns or findings of misconduct and the need to cleanse the literature. We show that the law disincentivises journals and publishers from ensuring truth in their publications. There are harmful consequences for medical care and public confidence in the medical profession and health care system when the foundations of medical science are questionable.

Preventing fraud in biomedical research

Scientific fraud represents, to varying degrees, an increasingly important part of medical literature and is estimated to make up nearly 20% of this literature. The increase in the number of articles accessible in preprint without peer review during the COVID-19 pandemic has led to an increase in the accessibility of fraudulent articles. In recent years, the viral increase in the number of predatory journals has contributed to polluting the scientific literature with articles whose content is unverifiable. Given the international nature of biomedical research, there is an urgent need to define unequivocally what is considered scientific fraud. In order to counter scientific misconduct, national and supranational procedures should be implemented to inform researchers at the beginning of their medical and biomedical training. Ethics commissions should implement local procedures for monitoring ongoing research. Finally, the fight against predatory journals requires information for researchers and the availability of tools to identify these journals.

A survey of retractions in the cardiovascular literature

BACKGROUND

Retractions of erroneous and fraudulent papers from the biomedical literature continue to be a major concern. The aim of this analysis is to summarize trends of retractions in the cardiovascular literature over the past four decades.

METHODS

A review of the Retraction Watch database for retracted articles published between 1978 and 2020 in the cardiovascular literature was performed. Retractions with the term "medicine" in the subject code were selected. Titles and abstracts were reviewed and only retractions of articles in cardiovascular medicine and surgery were included.

RESULTS

459 retraction notices published in 228 journals were identified. The number of retractions increased with time from 1 in 1991 to 48 at the end of 2019 (P < 0.001). Overall, the yearly percentage of retraction increased during the study period (P < 0.001) but decreased after 2015. China had the highest percentage of retractions when compared to other countries (P < 0.001). The majority of articles were retracted for scientific misconduct (n = 289, 63.0%); retractions due to scientific misconduct increased significantly over the study period (P = 0.04) but decreased after 2015. The median time from publication to retraction was 1.4 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 0.6-3.8) and decreased significantly over time (P < 0.001). The median number of citations of retracted articles was 8.0.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of retractions and the yearly percentage of retraction in the cardiovascular literature increased significantly during the study period, although a decrease was seen after 2015. Scientific misconduct represents the most common reason for retraction, although a reduction has been observed in the last five years.

Violation of research integrity principles occurs more often than we think

The science community generally believes that the violation of research integrity is rare. Built upon this belief, the scientific system makes little effort to examine the trustworthiness of research. Research misconduct refers to an intentional violation of research integrity principles, which has an extensive and far-reaching impact on the trustworthiness and reputation of science. Emerging evidence has suggested that research misconduct is far more common than we normally perceive. Far more problematic papers should be retracted than are being retracted because of poor actions when confronting research misconduct. Research misconduct is usually driven by incentives in the form of pursuing publications for researchers' career needs and is further facilitated by poor research governance. The current strategy that tackles potential research misconduct focuses on protecting the reputation of authors and their institutions but neglects the interests of patients, clinicians and honest researchers. Removing improper incentives, training researchers and imposing better governance are vital to reducing research misconduct. Awareness of the possibility of misconduct and formalized procedures that scrutinize study trustworthiness are important during peer review and in systematic reviews.

Number and quality of randomized controlled trials in obstetrics published in the top general medical and obstetrics and gynecology journals

BACKGROUND

There has been an increasing number of randomized controlled trials published in obstetrics and maternal-fetal medicine to reduce biases of treatment effect and to provide insights on the cause-effect of the relationship between treatment and outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to identify obstetrical randomized controlled trials published in top weekly general medical journals and monthly obstetrics and gynecology journals, to assess their quality in reporting and identify factors associated with publication in different journals.

STUDY DESIGN

The 4 weekly medical journals with the highest 2019 impact factor (New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, The Journal of the American Medical Association, and British Medical Journal), the top 4 monthly obstetrics and gynecology journals with obstetrics-related research (American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, Obstetrics & Gynecology, and the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology), and the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology Maternal-Fetal Medicine were searched for obstetrical randomized controlled trials in the years 2018 to 2020. The primary outcome was the number of obstetrical randomized controlled trials published in the obstetrics and gynecology journals vs the weekly medical journals and the percentage of trials published, overall and per journal. The secondary outcomes included the proportion of positive vs negative trials overall and per journal and the assessment of the study characteristics of published trials, including quality assessment criteria.

RESULTS

Of the 4024 original research articles published in the 9 journals during the 3-year study period, 1221 (30.3%) were randomized controlled trials, with 137 (11.2%) randomized controlled trials being in obstetrics (46 in 2018, 47 in 2019, and 44 studies in 2020). Furthermore, 33 (24.1%) were published in weekly medical journals, and 104 (75.9%) were published in obstetrics and gynecology journals. The percentage of obstetrical randomized controlled trials published ranged from 1.5% to 9.6% per journal. Overall, 34.3% of obstetrical trials were statistically significant or "positive" for the primary outcome. Notably, 24.8% of the trials were retrospectively registered after the enrollment of the first study patient. Trials published in the 4 weekly medical journals enrolled significantly more patients (1801 vs 180; P<.001), received more often funding from the federal government (78.8% vs 35.6%; P<.001), and were more likely to be multicenter (90.9% vs 42.3%; P<.001), non-United States based (69.7% vs 49.0%; P=.03), and double blinded (45.5% vs 18.3%; P=.003) than trials published in the obstetrics and gynecology journals. There was no difference in study type (noninferiority vs superiority) and trial quality characteristics, including pretrial registration, ethics approval statement, informed consent statement, and adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines statement between studies published in weekly medical journals and studies published in obstetrics and gynecology journals.

CONCLUSION

Approximately 45 trials in obstetrics are being published every year in the highest impact journals, with one-fourth being in the weekly medical journals and the remainder in the obstetrics and gynecology journals. Only about a third of published obstetrical trials are positive. Trials published in weekly medical journals are larger, more likely to be funded by the government, multicenter, international, and double blinded. Quality metrics are similar between weekly medical journals and obstetrics and gynecology journals.

Assessing Research Misconduct in Randomized Controlled Trials

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) serve as the pillar of evidence-based medicine and guide medical practice. Compromised data integrity in RCTs undermines the authority of this valuable tool for science and puts patients at risk. Although a large number of retractions due to data issues in obstetrics and gynecology have occurred in the past few years, many problematic RCTs could still go uncovered because in general there is insufficient willingness to envisage and confront research misconduct. In this article, we discuss the necessity of assessing research misconduct, summarize methods that have been applied in detecting previous cases of misconduct, and propose potential solutions. There is no established mechanism to monitor feedback on published articles and the current system that handles potential research misconduct is unsatisfactory. Fortunately, there are methods to assess data integrity in RCTs both with and without individual participant data. Investigations into research misconduct can be facilitated by assessing all publications from a leading author or author group to identify duplication and patterns of ongoing misconduct. There is a pressing need to improve the mechanism that investigates data manipulation. The mechanism that handles misconduct should prioritize the interests of patients and readers rather than trial authors and their institutions. An equally urgent issue is to establish mechanisms that prevent compromised trials from polluting evidence synthesis or misguiding practice.

An Estimation of the Retraction Gap Across Neurosurgery-A Crevice or a Chasm?

BACKGROUND

The incidence of retractions has been increasing steadily, in direct proportion to the volume of scientific literature. Retraction of published articles depends on the visibility of journals and on postpublication scrutiny of published articles by peers. The possibility thus exists that not all compromised ("retractable") articles are detected and retracted from the less-visible journals. The proportion of "retractable" articles and its converse, the proportion of published articles in each journal that are likely to be "true" (PTP), have not been estimated hitherto.

METHODS

Three journal sets were created: pure neurosurgery journals (NS-P), the neurosurgery component of multidisciplinary journals (NS-MD), and high-impact clinical journals (HICJs). We described a new metric (the retraction gap [RGap]), defined as the proportion of retractable articles in journals that have not been retracted. We computed the expected number of retractable articles, RGap, and PTP for each journal, and compared these metrics across groups.

RESULTS

Fifty-three NS-P journals, 10 NS-MD journals, and 63 HICJs were included in the analysis. The estimated number of retractable articles was 31 times the actual number of retractions in NS-P journals, 6 times higher in the NS-MD journals, and 26 times higher for the HICJs. The RGap was 96.7% for the NS-P group, 83.5% for the NS-MD group, and 96.2% for the HICJs. The PTP was 99.3% in the NS-P group, 99.2% in the NS-MD group, and 98.6% in the HICJs.

CONCLUSIONS

Neurosurgery as a discipline had a higher RGap but also a higher PTP than the other 2 groups.

Plagiarism detection and prevention: a primer for researchers

Plagiarism is an ethical misconduct affecting the quality, readability, and trustworthiness of scholarly publications. Improving researcher awareness of plagiarism of words, ideas, and graphics is essential for avoiding unacceptable writing practices. Global editorial associations have publicized their statements on strategies to clean literature from redundant, stolen, and misleading information. Consulting related documents is advisable for upgrading author instructions and warning plagiarists of academic and other consequences of the unethical conduct. A lack of creative thinking and poor academic English skills are believed to compound most instances of redundant and "copy-and-paste" writing. Plagiarism detection software largely relies on reporting text similarities. However, manual checks are required to reveal inappropriate referencing, copyright violations, and substandard English writing. Medical researchers and authors may improve their writing skills and avoid the same errors by consulting the list of retractions due to plagiarism which are tracked on the PubMed platform and discussed on the Retraction Watch blog.

Can tweets be used to detect problems early with scientific papers? A case study of three retracted COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 papers

Methodological mistakes, data errors, and scientific misconduct are considered prevalent problems in science that are often difficult to detect. In this study, we explore the potential of using data from Twitter for discovering problems with publications. In this case study, we analyzed tweet texts of three retracted publications about COVID-19 (Coronavirus disease 2019)/SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) and their retraction notices. We did not find early warning signs in tweet texts regarding one publication, but we did find tweets that casted doubt on the validity of the two other publications shortly after their publication date. An extension of our current work might lead to an early warning system that makes the scientific community aware of problems with certain publications. Other sources, such as blogs or post-publication peer-review sites, could be included in such an early warning system. The methodology proposed in this case study should be validated using larger publication sets that also include a control group, i.e., publications that were not retracted.

Retracted articles in the biomedical literature from Indian authors

The aim of the present study is to identify retracted articles in the biomedical literature (co) authored by Indian authors and to examine the features of retracted articles. The PubMed database was searched to find the retracted articles in order to reach the goal. The search yielded 508 records and retrieved for the detailed analysis of: authorships and collaboration type, funding information, who retracts? journals and impact factors, and reasons for retraction. The results show that most of the biomedical articles retracted were published after 2010 and common reasons are plagiarism and fake data for retraction. More than half of the retracted articles were co-authored within the institutions and there is no repeat offender. 25% of retracted articles were published in the top 15 journals and 33% were published in the non-impact factor journals. Average time from publication to retraction is calculated to 2.86 years and retractions due to fake data takes longest period among the reasons. Majority of the funded research was retracted due to fake data whereas it is plagiarism for non-funded.

Quality criteria for randomized controlled studies: obstetrical journal guidelines

BACKGROUND

Most retractions of obstetrics and gynecology manuscripts are because of scientific misconduct. It would be preferable to prevent randomized controlled trials with scientific misconduct from ever appearing in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, rather than to have to retract them later.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the policies of obstetrics and gynecology and top medical journals in their author guidelines and electronic submission systems regarding prospective randomized controlled trial registration, ethics committee approval, research protocols, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trial guidelines, and data sharing and to detect the most common quality criteria requested for randomized controlled trials in these journals.

STUDY DESIGN

Author guidelines were identified via online Google searches from the websites of selected peer-reviewed medical journals. Journals in obstetrics and gynecology were selected from the list of journals with impact factors based on the Journal Citation Report released by Clarivate Analytics on June 29, 2020, focusing on those publishing original clinical research in obstetrics, in particular randomized controlled trials. In addition, 4 of the top impact factor peer-reviewed general medical journals publishing randomized controlled trials were included. The requirements for selected quality criteria for randomized controlled trials analyzed in the author guidelines for each journal were details of 5 general issues: prospective randomized controlled trial registration (4 subcategories), ethics committee approval (4 subcategories), research protocol (3 subcategories), Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines (3 subcategories), and data sharing (3 subcategories). To evaluate the requirements within the electronic submission system, a mock submission of a randomized controlled trial was also done for each journal, and the same criteria were assessed on the online software for submission. The primary outcome was the overall percentage for each of the quality criteria that were listed as required within the author guidelines or required in the submission system among all journals. Planned subgroup analyses were top general medicine vs obstetrics and gynecology journals and top 4 obstetrics and gynecology vs other obstetrics and gynecology journals.

RESULTS

Most studied peer-reviewed journals listed in their author guidelines 7 specific criteria for submission of randomized controlled trials: prospective registration and registration number, statement of ethical approval with name of approving committee and statement of informed consent, statement of adherence to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines, and data sharing statement. For most journals, the submission software did not require these or any other criteria for submission. There were minimal differences in criteria listed for top medical journals vs other obstetrics and gynecology journals and among top vs other obstetrics and gynecology journals.

CONCLUSION

Prospective registration and registration number, statement of ethical approval with name of approving committee and statement of informed consent, statement of adherence to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines, and data sharing statement are the randomized controlled trial quality criteria requested by leading medical and obstetrics and gynecology journals. These obstetrics and gynecology journals agree to make, as much as possible, these criteria uniform and mandatory in author guidelines and also through improved submission software.

An analysis of retractions in neurosurgery and allied clinical and basic science specialties

Background

As the volume of scientific publications increases, the rate of retraction of published papers is also likely to increase. In the present study, we report the characteristics of retracted papers from clinical neurosurgery and allied clinical and basic science specialties.

Methods

Retracted papers were identified using two separate search strategies on PubMed. Attributes of the retracted papers were collected from PubMed and the Retraction Watch database. The reasons for retraction were analyzed. The factors that correlated with time to retraction were identified. Detailed citation analysis for the retracted papers was performed. The retraction rates for neurosurgery journals were computed.

Results

A total of 191 retractions were identified; 55% pertained to clinical neurosurgery. The most common reasons for retraction were plagiarism, duplication, and compromised peer review. The countries associated with the highest number of retractions were China, USA, and Japan. The full text of the retraction notice was not available for 11% of the papers. A median of 50% of all citations received by the papers occurred after retraction. The factors that correlated with a longer time to retraction included basic science category, the number of collaborating departments, and the H-index of the journal. The overall rate of retractions in neurosurgery journals was 0.037%.

Conclusions

The retraction notice needs to be freely available on all search engines. Plagiarism checks and reference checks prior to publication of papers (to ensure no retracted papers have been cited) must be mandatory. Mandatory data deposition would help overcome issues with data and results.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00701-020-04615-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Retracted articles in rehabilitation: just the tip of the iceberg? A bibliometric analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The volume of withdrawn publications in scholarly disciplines has grown steadily, but there is little awareness about this issue in rehabilitation. The aim of this study was to analyze the extent of retracted articles pertaining to rehabilitation.

METHODS

Retracted articles were searched in 4 different bibliographic databases from their inception to April 2020: PubMed, Web of Science, WikiLetters and Retraction Watch. Three independent reviewers assessed the relevance of the retrieved articles to the rehabilitation area.

RESULTS

Of 280 rehabilitation-related publications retracted between 1984 and 2020, 83 (29.6%) were published in 55 full open access journals and 197 (70.4%) were published in 147 traditional, non-open access or hybrid journals. In the last 10 years (2009-2018) there was a significant steady increase in both the total number of retractions (p < 0.005; r = 0.856; R2 = 0.733) and retraction rate per year (p < 0.05; r = 0.751; R2 = 0.564). However, the number of retractions represents a very small percentage (~ 0.1%) of the overall volume of publications in rehabilitation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data indicate that the number of retracted articles in rehabilitation is increasing, although the phenomenon is still limited. However, the true prevalence of misconduct may go unnoticed due to the large number of low-quality journals not indexed in the searched databases. Physiotherapists should be aware of the danger of misleading information originating from withdrawn publications.

Ética e bioética no mundo científico: uma revisão integrativa

Objetivou-se analisar, por meio da literatura, a realidade das questões éticas e bioéticas no mundo científico. Trata-se de uma revisão integrativa, realizada com artigos contidos em três bases de dados. Foram utilizados sete Descritores em Ciências da Saúde, a partir dos quais foram elaboradas três combinações utilizadas em todas as bases. Após aplicar os critérios de inclusão, foram selecionados 18 artigos. As más condutas, especialmente o plágio, a falsificação e fabricação de dados vêm apresentando comportamento crescente e requerem medidas mais severas para seu controle, a fim de manter a credibilidade científica perante a sociedade e os órgãos superiores.

Journal Retraction Rates and Citation Metrics: An Ouroboric Association?

Introduction Retraction of published papers has a far-reaching impact on the scientific world, especially if the retracted papers were published in high-impact journals. Although it has been noted that the retraction rates of journals correlated with their citation metrics, no conclusive data were available for most clinical specialties. In this study, we determined the retraction rate for anesthesia and two comparison groups (neurosurgery and high impact clinical journals). We then studied the correlation of the retraction rate with citation metrics. Methods We generated a list of all anesthesia journals that were indexed in the National Library of Medicine database. We obtained the number of papers published in each journal as well as the number of papers retracted from each. We also collated the Impact Factor® and H-index of each journal. The same methodology was followed for neurosurgery and high impact clinical journals. We then studied the correlations between the retraction rate and citation metrics of each journal. Results The retraction index was 2.59 for anesthesiology, 0.66 for neurosurgery and 0.75 for the high-impact clinical journals group. The retraction rate did not correlate with the citation metrics. However, the number of papers published in each journal and the absolute number of retractions showed a positive correlation with the citation metrics. The H-index showed stronger correlations with these parameters than the Impact factor. Conclusions The number of retractions increased in proportion to both the number of papers published in a journal and the citation metrics of that journal.

For how long and with what relevance do genetics articles retracted due to research misconduct remain active in the scientific literature

We aimed to quantify the number of pre- and post-retraction citations obtained by genetics articles retracted due to research misconduct. All retraction notices available in the Retraction Watch database for genetics articles published in 1970-2016 were assessed. The reasons for retraction were fabrication/falsification and plagiarism. The endpoints were the number of citations of retracted articles and when and how journals reported on retractions and whether this was published on PubMed.Four hundred and sixty retracted genetics articles were cited 34,487 times; 7,945 (23%) were post-retraction citations. Median time to retraction and time to last citation were 3.2 and 3 years, respectively. Most (96%) had a PubMed retraction notice, One percent of these were totally removed from journal websites altogether, and 4% had no information available on either the online or PDF versions. Ninety percent of citations were from articles retracted due to falsification/fabrication. The percentage of post-retraction citations was significantly higher in the case of plagiarism (42%) than in the case of fabrication/falsification (21.5%) (p<0.001). Median time to retraction was shorter (1.3 years) in the case of plagiarism than for fabrication/falsification (4.8 years, p<0.001). The retraction was more frequently reported in the PDFs (70%) for the fabrication/falsification cases than for the plagiarism cases (43%, p<0.001). The highest rate of retracted papers due to falsification/fabrication was among authors in the USA, and the highest rate for plagiarism was in China.Although most retractions were appropriately handled by journals, the gravest issue was that median time to retraction for articles retracted for falsification/fabrication was nearly 5 years, earning close to 6800 post-retraction citations. Journals should implement processes to speed-up the retraction process that will help to minimize post-retraction citations.

Retracted publications and their citation in dental literature: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The present systematic review aimed to perform an in-depth analysis of the different features of retracted publications in the dental field.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This review has been recorded in the PROSPERO database (CRD42017075634). Two independent reviewers performed an electronic search (Pubmed, Retraction Watch) for retracted articles in dental literature up to December 31, 2018.

RESULTS

180 retracted papers were identified, the first published in 2001. Retractions increased by 47% in the last four-year period (2014-2018), when compared with 2009-2013 (94 and 64 retracted publications, respectively). Author misconduct was the most common reason for retraction (65.0%), followed by honest scientific errors (12.2%) and publisher-related issues (10.6%). The majority of retracted research was conducted in Asia (55.6%), with 49 papers written in India (27.2%). 552 researchers (89%) are listed as authors in only one retracted article, while 10 researchers (1.6%) are present in five or more retracted publications. Retracted articles were cited 530 times after retraction: the great majority of these citations (89.6%) did not consider the existence of the retraction notice and treated data from retracted articles as reliable.

CONCLUSIONS

Retractions in dental literature have constantly increased in recent years, with the majority of them due to misconduct and fraud. The publication of unreliable research has many negative consequences. Studies derived from such material are designed on potentially incorrect bases, waste funds and resources, and most importantly, increase risk of incorrect treatment for patients. Citation of retracted papers represents a major issue for the scientific community.