Why does retraction take so much longer than publication?

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authors, with or without coauthors or editors, that research they cited in systematic reviews and guidelines has been retracted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.

Potential Issues in Mandating a Disclosure of Institutional Investigation in Retraction Notices

A retraction notice is a formal announcement for the removal of a paper from the literature, which is a weighty matter. Xu et al. (Science and Engineering Ethics, 29(4), 25 2023) reported that 73.7% of retraction notices indexed by the Web of Science (1927-2019) provided no information about institutional investigations that may have led to the retractions, and recommended that Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) retraction guidelines should make it mandatory to disclose institutional investigations leading to retractions in such notices. While this recommendation would add to the transparency of the retraction process, a blanket mandate as such could be potentially problematic. For research misconduct (RM)-positive cases, a mandatory investigative disclosure may be abused by some to deflect responsibility. More importantly, a mandatory disclosure could harm authors and institutions in RM-negative cases (i.e. those stemming from honest errors with no misconduct). I illustrate with case vignettes the potential epistemic injustice and confusion that a mandate for investigation disclosure in retraction notices could incur, and suggest a more nuanced approach to its implementation.

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.