Retracted science and the retraction index

Trends in Retraction of Orthopaedic Research Articles

BACKGROUND

Despite the use of in-depth peer-review processes, there occasionally are issues with published manuscripts that require retraction. The purpose of the present study was to explore the reasons for the retraction of orthopaedic research articles, with consideration of the journal impact factor and the orthopaedic subspecialty.

METHODS

In 2023, a database search was conducted for retracted papers written in the English language in the orthopaedic literature. The initial search yielded 3,147 results. These papers were screened by 3 independent reviewers, and 207 studies were jointly identified as retracted orthopaedic research articles. We collected data regarding the reasons for retraction, the date of publication, the date of retraction, the orthopaedic subspecialty, the impact factor of the journal, the countries of research origin, and the study design.

RESULTS

Of the 207 retracted articles, 104 (50.2%) were clinical science studies and 103 (49.8%) were basic science studies. The reasons for retraction were plagiarism (n = 39), intrinsic errors (n = 33), duplication (n = 30), fraud (n = 25), manipulation of the peer-review process (n = 20), no reason given (n = 18), no approval from an ethics board (n = 17), author's choice (n = 9), data ownership and/or copyright issue (n = 9), and other (n = 7). The journal impact factors ranged from 0.17 to 9.80, with a median of 2.90. The mean time from publication to retraction across all of the studies was 32.1 months (standard deviation = 37.3 months; n = 201).

CONCLUSIONS

An analysis of orthopaedic research revealed that the majority of retractions of articles were due to plagiarism, study errors, or duplicated material; retractions occurred internationally and across a wide range of journals.

Evolution of retracted publications in the medical sciences: Citations analysis, bibliometrics, and altmetrics trends

We investigated reasons for retraction, pre-and post-retraction citations and Altmetrics indicators of retracted publications in the medical sciences from 2016 to 2020. Data were retrieved from Scopus (n = 840). The Retraction Watch database was used to identify the reasons for retraction and the time that elapsed from publication to retraction. The findings showed that intentional errors were the most prevalent reasons for retraction. China (438), the United States (130), and India (51) have the largest share of retractions. These retracted publications were cited 5,659 times in other research publications, of which 1,559 citations occurred after the retraction, which should raise concern. These retracted papers were also shared in online platforms, mainly on Twitter and by members of the general public. We recommend that the early detection of retracted papers may help to reduce the rate of citation and sharing of these publications, and minimize their negative impact.

A systematic review of ENT retractions

PURPOSE

Retraction is the removal of published material due to flaws in research that cannot be corrected. Our aim was to perform a systematic review of all retracted literature in Ear Nose and Throat to understand the characteristics of retraction and the citations of retracted literature.

METHODS

The Retraction Watch, EMBASE and MEDLINE databases were systematically searched to yield relevant retractions. Two independent authors performed abstract and full-text screening. Non-relevant texts, articles in non-English languages, and articles that were neither published (protocols) or retracted (expression of concern) were excluded.

RESULTS

We found 225 retractions in Ear Nose and Throat literature from 1992 to 2023. The number of retractions increased with time, and the average time-to-retraction was 1 year (range 0-29). Most articles were retracted due to misconduct (72%). In total, 191/225 of retractions were signposted with a retraction notice; 90.6% of notices were linked to the original manuscript; 96.9% specified the reason for retraction and 100% were freely accessible. Publications were cited more after retraction (median 2, range 0-215 vs median 0, range 0-78, Z -1.78, p = 0.075), however this was not significant, and appeared to improve with a shorter retraction time (RS 0.67, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Retractions, although rare, are increasing across all scientific disciplines. Our data suggests that retractions are both efficiently and transparently publicised in the Ear Nose and Throat Literature. Investigators should be veracious when conducting their own research and regularly appraise manuscripts to ensure that misinformation is not perpetuated, remaining aware that retracted articles continue to be cited.

Unraveling the influence of Pavlovian cues on decision-making: A pre-registered meta-analysis on Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer

Amidst the replicability crisis, promoting transparency and rigor in research becomes imperative. The Pavlovian-to-Instrumental Transfer (PIT) paradigm is increasingly used in human studies to offer insights into how Pavlovian cues, by anticipating rewards or punishments, influence decision-making and potentially contribute to the development of clinical conditions. However, research on this topic faces challenges, including methodological variability and the need for standardized approaches, which can undermine the quality and robustness of experimental findings. Hence, we conducted a meta-analysis to unravel the methodological, task-related, individual, training, and learning factors that can modulate PIT. By scrutinizing these factors, the present meta-analysis reviews the current literature on human PIT, provides practical guidelines for future research to enhance study outcomes and refine methodologies, and identifies knowledge gaps that can serve as a direction for future studies aiming to advance the comprehension of how Pavlovian cues shape decision-making.

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.

Analytical code sharing practices in biomedical research

Data-driven computational analysis is becoming increasingly important in biomedical research, as the amount of data being generated continues to grow. However, the lack of practices of sharing research outputs, such as data, source code and methods, affects transparency and reproducibility of studies, which are critical to the advancement of science. Many published studies are not reproducible due to insufficient documentation, code, and data being shared. We conducted a comprehensive analysis of 453 manuscripts published between 2016-2021 and found that 50.1% of them fail to share the analytical code. Even among those that did disclose their code, a vast majority failed to offer additional research outputs, such as data. Furthermore, only one in ten articles organized their code in a structured and reproducible manner. We discovered a significant association between the presence of code availability statements and increased code availability. Additionally, a greater proportion of studies conducting secondary analyses were inclined to share their code compared to those conducting primary analyses. In light of our findings, we propose raising awareness of code sharing practices and taking immediate steps to enhance code availability to improve reproducibility in biomedical research. By increasing transparency and reproducibility, we can promote scientific rigor, encourage collaboration, and accelerate scientific discoveries. We must prioritize open science practices, including sharing code, data, and other research products, to ensure that biomedical research can be replicated and built upon by others in the scientific community.

Taking it back: A pilot study of a rubric measuring retraction notice quality

The frequency of scientific retractions has grown substantially in recent years. However, thus far there is no standardized retraction notice format to which journals and their publishers adhere voluntarily, let alone compulsorily. We developed a rubric specifying seven criteria in order to judge whether retraction notices are easily and freely accessible, informative, and transparent. We mined the Retraction Watch database and evaluated a total of 768 retraction notices from two publishers (Springer and Wiley) over three years (2010, 2015, and 2020). Per our rubric, both publishers tended to score higher on measures of openness/availability, accessibility, and clarity as to why a paper was retracted than they did in: acknowledging institutional investigations; confirming whether there was consensus among authors; and specifying which parts of any given paper warranted retraction. Springer retraction notices appeared to improve over time with respect to the rubric's seven criteria. We observed some discrepancies among raters, indicating the difficulty in developing a robust objective rubric for evaluating retraction notices.

Publication integrity: what is it, why does it matter, how it is safeguarded and how could we do better?

Trustworthy literature is an essential part of knowledge, evidence-based information, and science. However, publications can contain mistakes or have results from unreliable research, which may compromise their integrity. In this review, we discuss publication integrity, with a focus on our field of biomedicine, and how it could be improved. In our experience, compromised publication integrity is frequently poorly handled, and we, and others, have reported that responses to publication integrity concerns can be inefficient, inconsistent, slow, opaque, and incomplete. Checklists and tools are now available to assist in the assessment of publication integrity, but systemic changes are needed. However, this requires many of the key parties involved (journals, publishers, institutions, academic societies, and regulators) to acknowledge and engage with the problem. There is little evidence of a willingness to do this. We conclude that it has been recognised for many years that the system for dealing with publication integrity is broken, but currently, there appears little interest in trying to improve it.

Prisoner's science

Decisions involving cooperation or competition are common in science. Here, we consider three situations frequently encountered in the biomedical sciences, namely, establishing priority, sharing reagents, and selecting a journal for publication, through the lens of the prisoner's dilemma. In each situation, cooperation is the best strategy for scientists and for science.

Is biomedical research self-correcting? Modelling insights on the persistence of spurious science

The reality that volumes of published biomedical research are not reproducible is an increasingly recognized problem. Spurious results reduce trustworthiness of reported science, increasing research waste. While science should be self-correcting from a philosophical perspective, that in insolation yields no information on efforts required to nullify suspect findings or factors shaping how quickly science may be corrected. There is also a paucity of information on how perverse incentives in the publishing ecosystem favouring novel positive findings over null results shape the ability of published science to self-correct. Knowledge of factors shaping self-correction of science remain obscure, limiting our ability to mitigate harms. This modelling study introduces a simple model to capture dynamics of the publication ecosystem, exploring factors influencing research waste, trustworthiness, corrective effort and time to correction. Results from this work indicate that research waste and corrective effort are highly dependent on field-specific false positive rates and time delays to corrective results to spurious findings are propagated. The model also suggests conditions under which biomedical science is self-correcting and those under which publication of correctives alone cannot stem propagation of untrustworthy results. Finally, this work models a variety of potential mitigation strategies, including researcher- and publisher-driven interventions.

Review of retracted papers in the field of neurology

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Despite the growing awareness of academic fraud, its prevalence in the field of neurology has not been fully assessed. This review aims to analyze the characteristics of the retracted papers in the field of neurology and the reasons for the retraction to better understand the trends in this area and to assist to avoid retraction incidents.

METHODS

A total of 79 papers were included, which pertained to 22 countries and 64 journals. The marking methods for retracting original papers included watermarks (89.04%), retracted signs in the text (5.48%) and no prompt (5.48%). The median M (interquartile range [IQR]) of citations in retractions in neurology was 7 (41). Studies continued to be cited after retraction with an M (IQR) of 3 (16). The journal impact factor was between 0 and 157.335, with an M (IQR) of 5.127 (3.668). 45.21% and 31.51% papers were mainly published in the first and second quartile journals, respectively. The M (IQR) time elapsed between publication and retraction was 32 (44) months. The reasons for retraction included two major categories, academic misconduct (79.75%) and academic unintentional mistakes (20.25%).

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The number of retractions in neurology has been on the rise over the past decade, with fabricated academic misconduct being the main cause of the retractions. Due to the long time lag between publication and retraction, a number of unreliable findings continue to be cited following retraction. In addition to the requisite standards of academic ethics, augmenting research training and fostering interdisciplinary collaboration are crucial in enhancing research integrity.

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.

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.

Analytical code sharing practices in biomedical research

Data-driven computational analysis is becoming increasingly important in biomedical research, as the amount of data being generated continues to grow. However, the lack of practices of sharing research outputs, such as data, source code and methods, affects transparency and reproducibility of studies, which are critical to the advancement of science. Many published studies are not reproducible due to insufficient documentation, code, and data being shared. We conducted a comprehensive analysis of 453 manuscripts published between 2016-2021 and found that 50.1% of them fail to share the analytical code. Even among those that did disclose their code, a vast majority failed to offer additional research outputs, such as data. Furthermore, only one in ten papers organized their code in a structured and reproducible manner. We discovered a significant association between the presence of code availability statements and increased code availability (p=2.71×10-9). Additionally, a greater proportion of studies conducting secondary analyses were inclined to share their code compared to those conducting primary analyses (p=1.15*10-07). In light of our findings, we propose raising awareness of code sharing practices and taking immediate steps to enhance code availability to improve reproducibility in biomedical research. By increasing transparency and reproducibility, we can promote scientific rigor, encourage collaboration, and accelerate scientific discoveries. We must prioritize open science practices, including sharing code, data, and other research products, to ensure that biomedical research can be replicated and built upon by others in the scientific community.

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.

Teaching students to R3eason, not merely to solve problem sets: The role of philosophy and visual data communication in accessible data science education

Much guidance on statistical training in STEM fields has been focused largely on the undergraduate cohort, with graduate education often being absent from the equation. Training in quantitative methods and reasoning is critical for graduate students in biomedical and science programs to foster reproducible and responsible research practices. We argue that graduate student education should more center around fundamental reasoning and integration skills rather than mainly on listing 1 statistical test method after the other without conveying the bigger context picture or critical argumentation skills that will enable student to improve research integrity through rigorous practice. Herein, we describe the approach we take in a quantitative reasoning course in the R3 program at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, with an error-focused lens, based on visualization and communication competencies. Specifically, we take this perspective stemming from the discussed causes of irreproducibility and apply it specifically to the many aspects of good statistical practice in science, ranging from experimental design to data collection and analysis, and conclusions drawn from the data. We also provide tips and guidelines for the implementation and adaptation of our course material to various graduate biomedical and STEM science programs.

Cross-cultural differences in retracted publications of male and female from a global perspective

The aim of this paper is threefold: (i) to identify the combinations of national culture dimensions that lead to high (or low) male or female retracted publications, (ii) to understand the role of personal trust as a relevant condition that combines with national culture dimensions to cause high (or low) male or female retraction, and (iii) to identify the differences in the configurations that lead to those outcomes. Based on framework of Hofstede's cross-cultural analysis and data from Hofstede Center, World Value, and Web of Science, this essay analyzes cultural complex causal relations between national culture and trust dimensions (conditions), and male and female retracted publications (outcomes) in 30 countries nationally and globally by fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis. This research provides three major insights: (i) Cultural dimensions (power distance, individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, long-term orientation) and trust are not necessary conditions for both male and female to cause retractions, (ii) different levels of personal trust (high/low) combine with national cultural dimensions in order to produce different configurations that can lead to high or low retractions, and (iii) Each gender causes retractions in a similar or identical way, but each also owns its unique way. Finally, we provide effective policy recommendations to specific countries based on our critical conclusions and discussions.

Are female scientists underrepresented in self-retractions for honest error?

Retractions are among the effective measures to strengthen the self-correction of science and the quality of the literature. When it comes to self-retractions for honest errors, exposing one's own failures is not a trivial matter for researchers. However, self-correcting data, results and/or conclusions has increasingly been perceived as a good research practice, although rewarding such practice challenges traditional models of research assessment. In this context, it is timely to investigate who have self-retracted for honest error in terms of country, field, and gender. We show results on these three factors, focusing on gender, as data are scarce on the representation of female scientists in efforts to set the research record straight. We collected 3,822 retraction records, including research articles, review papers, meta-analyses, and letters under the category "error" from the Retraction Watch Database for the 2010-2021 period. We screened the dataset collected for research articles (2,906) and then excluded retractions by publishers, editors, or third parties, and those mentioning any investigation issues. We analyzed the content of each retraction manually to include only those indicating that they were requested by authors and attributed solely to unintended mistakes. We categorized the records according to country, field, and gender, after selecting research articles with a sole corresponding author. Gender was predicted using Genderize, at a 90% probability threshold for the final sample (n = 281). Our results show that female scientists account for 25% of self-retractions for honest error, with the highest share for women affiliated with US institutions.

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.

Reframing the perception of outliers and negative data in translational research

Negative results can be a source of disappointment for scientists, yet their publication is needed for scientific progress, in particular for cutting-edge translational research of novel therapeutics. This manuscript is directed to scientists, junior and senior, that produce and review data for publication. It discusses the difference between 'negative' or 'unexpected' data and 'useless' data, re-evaluates the importance of the experimental design to generate valuable data and proposes strategies to work with and report negative results. Overall, it aims to reframe the perception of working with, reporting and reviewing unexpected data as an opportunity to provide rationale for innovative ideas, prevent the misuse of limited resources and, ultimately, strengthen the reputation of a scientist.

Systemic Obstacles to Addressing Research Misconduct in Higher Education: A Case Study

Several widely publicized incidents of academic research misconduct, combined with the politicization of the role of science in public health and policy discourse (e.g., COVID, immunizations) threaten to undermine faith in the integrity of empirical research. Researchers often maintain that peer-review and study replication allow the field to self-police and self-correct; however, stark disparities between official reports of academic research misconduct and self-reports of academic researchers, specifically with regard to data fabrication, belie this argument. Further, systemic imperatives in academic settings often incentivize institutional responses that focus on minimizing reputational harm rather than the impact of fabricated data on the integrity of extant and future research.

The credibility crisis and democratic governance: how to reform university governance to be compatible with the nature of science

To address the credibility crisis facing many disciplines, change is needed at the institutional level. Science will only function optimally if the culture by which it is governed becomes aligned with the way of thinking required in science itself. The paper suggests a series of graduated reforms to university governance, to radically reform the operation of universities. The reforms are based on existing established open democratic practices. The aim is for universities to become consistent with the flourishing of science and research more generally.

Recommendations to improve use and reporting of statistics in animal experiments

Flaws in experimental statistics are a major contributor to the poor reproducibility of animal experiments. Informed decisions about whether conclusions are justified requires clear reporting of experimental data and the statistical methods used to analyse them. When data are misinterpreted, manipulated or concealed to generate publications, it creates an illusion that chance observations are robust data which confirm the hypotheses presented. Attempts to reproduce and advance such observations can propagate large areas of irreproducible science. This hinders scientific progress, erodes public support for research, damages reputations and wastes resources. This review analyses and explains recommendations to improve use and reporting of statistics in animal experiments.

A critical path to producing high quality, reproducible data from quantitative western blot experiments

Western blotting experiments were initially performed to detect a target protein in a complex biological sample and more recently, to measure relative protein abundance. Chemiluminescence coupled with film-based detection was traditionally the gold standard for western blotting but accurate and reproducible quantification has been a major challenge from this methodology. The development of sensitive, camera-based detection technologies coupled with an updated technical approach permits the production of reproducible, quantitative data. Fluorescence reagent and detection solutions are the latest innovation in western blotting but there remains questions and debate concerning their relative sensitivity and dynamic range versus chemiluminescence. A methodology to optimize and produce excellent, quantitative western blot results with rigorous data analysis from membranes probed with both fluorescent and chemiluminescent antibodies is described. The data reveal when and how to apply these detection methods to achieve reproducible data with a stepwise approach to data processing for quantitative analysis.

Improving research integrity: a framework for responsible science communication

Research integrity, an essential precept of scientific inquiry and discovery, comprises norms such as Rigor, Reproducibility, and Responsibility (the 3R’s). Over the past decades, numerous issues have arisen that challenge the reliability of scientific studies, including irreproducibility crises, lack of good scientific principles, and erroneous communications, which have impacted the public’s trust in science and its findings. Here, we highlight one important component of research integrity that is often overlooked in the discussion of proposals for improving research quality and promoting robust research; one that spans from the lab bench to the dissemination of scientific work: responsible science communication. We briefly outline the role of education and institutions of higher education in teaching the tenets of good scientific practice and within that, the importance of adequate communications training. In that context, we present our framework of responsible science communication that we live by and teach to our students in courses and workshops that are part of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health R3 Center for Innovation in Science Education.

Faculty appointment and promotion in Taiwan's medical schools, a systematic analysis

BACKGROUND

A rigorous faculty appointment and promotion (FAP) system is vital for the success of any academic institution. However, studies examining the FAP system in Asian universities are lacking. We surveyed the FAP policies of Taiwan's medical schools and identified an overreliance on the CJA score (manuscript Category, Journal quality, and Author order). The potential shortcomings of this metric and recommendations for refinement were discussed.

METHODS

We obtained the FAP documents from all 12 medical schools in Taiwan, and analyzed their use of traditional versus non-traditional criteria for FAP according to a published methodology. The influence of the journal impact factor (JIF) on the FAP process was quantified by comparing its relative weight between papers with two extreme JIFs. To better understand the research impact and international standing of each school, we utilized the public bibliographic database to rank universities by the number of papers, and the proportions of papers within the top 10% or 50% citation.

RESULTS

Compared with other countries, Taiwan's medical schools focus more on the quantifiable quality of the research, mostly using a "CJA" score that integrates the category, JIF or ranking, and authorship of a paper, with the JIF being the most influential factor. The CJA score for an article with a JIF of 20 can be up to three times the threshold for promotion to Assistant Professor. The emphasis on JIF is based on a presumed correlation between JIF and citation counts. However, our analysis shows that Taiwan's medical schools have lower-than-average citation counts despite a competitive rank in the number of publications.

CONCLUSIONS

The JIF plays an unrivaled role in determining the outcome of FAP in Taiwan's medical schools, mostly via the CJA system. The questionable effectiveness of the current system in elevating the international standing of Taiwan's higher-education institutions calls for a re-examination of the FAP system. We recommend a reduction in the relative importance of CJA score in the FAP system, adopting more rigorous metrics such as the h-index for evaluating research quality, and supporting more research aimed at improving the FAP system.

A network of change: united action on research integrity

The last decade has seen renewed concern within the scientific community over the reproducibility and transparency of research findings. This paper outlines some of the various responsibilities of stakeholders in addressing the systemic issues that contribute to this concern. In particular, this paper asserts that a united, joined-up approach is needed, in which all stakeholders, including researchers, universities, funders, publishers, and governments, work together to set standards of research integrity and engender scientific progress and innovation. Using two developments as examples: the adoption of Registered Reports as a discrete initiative, and the use of open data as an ongoing norm change, we discuss the importance of collaboration across stakeholders.

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.

Ethical Orientation and Research Misconduct Among Business Researchers Under the Condition of Autonomy and Competition

The topics of ethical conduct and governance in academic research in the business field have attracted scientific and public attention. The concern is that research misconduct in organizations such as business schools and universities might result in practitioners, policymakers, and researchers grounding their decisions on biased research results. This study addresses ethical research misconduct by investigating whether the ethical orientation of business researchers is related to the likelihood of research misconduct, such as selective reporting of research findings. We distinguish between deontological and consequentialist ethical orientations and the competition between researchers and investigate the moderating role of their perceived autonomy. Based on global data collected from 1031 business scholars, we find that researchers with a strong deontological ethical orientation are less prone to misconduct. This effect is robust against different levels of perceived autonomy and competition. In contrast, researchers having a consequentialist ethical orientation is positively associated with misconduct in business research. High levels of competition in the research environment reinforce this effect. Our results reveal a potentially toxic combination comprising researchers with a strong consequentialist orientation who are embedded in highly competitive research environments. Our research calls for the development of ethical orientations grounded on maxims rather than anticipated consequences among researchers. We conclude that measures for ethical governance in business schools should consider the ethical orientation that underlies researchers' decision-making and the organizational and institutional environment in which business researchers are embedded.

Characteristics of global retractions of schizophrenia-related publications: A bibliometric analysis

OBJECTIVES

The growing rate of retraction of scientific publications has attracted much attention within the academic community, but there is little knowledge about the nature of such retractions in schizophrenia-related research. This study aimed to analyze the characteristics of retractions of schizophrenia-related publications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Web of Science was searched for eligible studies. A bibliometric analysis was conducted to describe the characteristics of the retractions using R software and Excel 2019. Content analysis was conducted to examine the essential components of retraction notices.

RESULTS

A total of 36 retracted publications with 415 citations were identified from 1997 to 2021, of which, 83.3% occurred in the last decade. The overall retraction rate was 0.19%, with most of them (29; 80.56%) from the United Kingdom. The retractions were published in 33 journals, and the 2020 IFs ranged between 0.17 and 49.96 (Median = 3.93). The retractions involved 21 research areas, particularly in Psychiatry (19; 52.78%), Neurosciences and Neurology (10; 27.78%), and Psychology (7; 19.44%). Data issues (17; 42.22%), administrative errors of the publishers (5; 13.89%), and study design (4; 11.11%) were the top three reasons for retractions.

CONCLUSION

This study provides an insight into retractions of schizophrenia-related publications. Institutional governance should be further strengthened to improve the scrutiny of publications, prevent continuing citations, and erroneous propagation after retraction.

Inconsistent and incomplete retraction of published research: A cross-sectional study on Covid-19 retractions and recommendations to mitigate risks for research, policy and practice

BACKGROUND

Retraction of published research can reduce the dissemination of incorrect or misleading information, but concerns have been raised about the clarity and rigor of the retraction process. Failure to clearly and consistently retract research has several risks, for example discredited or erroneous research may inform health research studies (e.g. clinical trials), policies and practices, potentially rendering these unreliable.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate consistency and clarity of research retraction, based on a case study of retracted Covid-19 research.

STUDY DESIGN

A cross-sectional study of retracted Covid-19 articles reporting empirical research findings, based on searches of Medline, Embase and Scopus on 10th July and 19th December 2020.

KEY RESULTS

We included 46 retracted Covid-19 articles. The number eligible for inclusion nearly doubled, from 26 to 46, in five months. Most articles (67%) were retracted from scientific journals and the remainder from preprint servers. Key findings: (1) reasons for retraction were not reported in 33% (15/46) of cases; (2) time from publication to retraction could not be determined in 43% (20/46) of cases; (3) More than half (59%) of retracted Covid-19 articles (27/46) remained available as original unmarked electronic documents after retraction (33% as full text and 26% as an abstract only). Sources of articles post-retraction were preprint servers, ResearchGate and, less commonly, websites including PubMed Central and the World Health Organization. A retracted journal article which controversially claimed a link between 5G technology and Covid-19 remains available in its original full text from at least 60 different websites.

CONCLUSIONS

The retraction process is inconsistent and often ambiguous, with more than half of retracted Covid-19 research articles remaining available, unmarked, from a wide range of online sources. There is an urgent need to improve guidance on the retraction process and to extend this to cover preprint servers. We provide structured recommendations to address these concerns and to reduce the risks that arise when retracted research is inappropriately cited.

Australian and Italian Psychologists’ View of Replication

Solutions to the crisis in confidence in the psychological literature have been proposed in many recent articles, including increased publication of replication studies, a solution that requires engagement by the psychology research community. We surveyed Australian and Italian academic research psychologists about the meaning and role of replication in psychology. When asked what they consider to be a replication study, nearly all participants (98% of Australians and 96% of Italians) selected options that correspond to a direct replication. Only 14% of Australians and 8% of Italians selected any options that included changing the experimental method. Majorities of psychologists from both countries agreed that replications are very important, that more replications should be done, that more resources should be allocated to them, and that they should be published more often. Majorities of psychologists from both countries reported that they or their students sometimes or often replicate studies, yet they also reported having no replication studies published in the prior 5 years. When asked to estimate the percentage of published studies in psychology that are replications, both Australians (with a median estimate of 13%) and Italians (with a median estimate of 20%) substantially overestimated the actual rate. When asked what constitute the main obstacles to replications, difficulty publishing replications was the most frequently cited obstacle, coupled with the high value given to innovative or novel research and the low value given to replication studies.

[COVID-19 and medical publications: How three articles have influenced the media and public decisions in France]

The present article details the publication process and the vicissitudes of three articles about SARS-CoV-2 and its related disease (COVID-19). The three articles were published one month apart between March and May 2020. Their mediatization led French health authorities to intervene. Our article does not focus on and does not assess the scientific quality of the articles presented, but only aims to open the reflection on medical publication. Beyond the description of these three specific cases, this article raises issues about article retraction, peer-reviewing, preprints, authorship and the dissemination of scientific medical information, including through the mass media. It discusses new publishing modes and the dissemination of published information in clinical research.

Apophenia and anesthesia: how we sometimes change our practice prematurely

Human beings are predisposed to identifying false patterns in statistical noise, a likely survival advantage during our evolutionary development. Moreover, humans seem to prefer "positive" results over "negative" ones. These two cognitive features lay a framework for premature adoption of falsely positive studies. Added to this predisposition is the tendency of journals to "overbid" for exciting or newsworthy manuscripts, incentives in both the academic and publishing industries that value change over truth and scientific rigour, and a growing dependence on complex statistical techniques that some reviewers do not understand. The purpose of this article is to describe the underlying causes of premature adoption and provide recommendations that may improve the quality of published science.

Reimagining the peer-review system for translational health science journals

Retractions of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) papers in high impact journals, such as The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine, have been panned as major scientific fraud in public media. The initial reaction to this news was to seek out scapegoats and blame individual authors, peer-reviewers, editors, and journals for wrong doing. This paper suggests that scapegoating a few individuals for faulty science is a myopic approach to the more profound problem with peer-review. Peer-review in its current limited form cannot be expected to adequately address the scope and complexity of large interdisciplinary science research collaboration, which is central in translational research. In addition, empirical studies on the effectiveness of traditional peer-review reveal its very real potential for bias and groupthink; as such, expectations regarding the capacity and effectiveness of the current peer review process are unrealistic. This paper proposes a new vision of peer-review in translational science that, on the one hand, would allow for early release of a manuscript to ensure expediency, whereas also creating a forum or a collective of various experts to actively comment, scrutinize, and even build on the research under review. The aim would be to not only generate open discussion and oversight respecting the quality and limitations of the research, but also to assess the extent and the means for that knowledge to translate into social benefit.

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.

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.