Academic Journal Retractions and the COVID-19 Pandemic

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.

Biomedical doctoral students' research practices when facing dilemmas: two vignette-based randomized control trials

Our aim was to describe the research practices of doctoral students facing a dilemma to research integrity and to assess the impact of inappropriate research environments, i.e. exposure to (a) a post-doctoral researcher who committed a Detrimental Research Practice (DRP) in a similar situation and (b) a supervisor who did not oppose the DRP. We conducted two 2-arm, parallel-group randomized controlled trials. We created 10 vignettes describing a realistic dilemma with two alternative courses of action (good practice versus DRP). 630 PhD students were randomized through an online system to a vignette (a) with (n = 151) or without (n = 164) exposure to a post-doctoral researcher; (b) with (n = 155) or without (n = 160) exposure to a supervisor. The primary outcome was a score from - 5 to + 5, where positive scores indicated the choice of DRP and negative scores indicated good practice. Overall, 37% of unexposed participants chose to commit DRP with important variation across vignettes (minimum 10%; maximum 66%). The mean difference [95%CI] was 0.17 [- 0.65 to 0.99;], p = 0.65 when exposed to the post-doctoral researcher, and 0.79 [- 0.38; 1.94], p = 0.16, when exposed to the supervisor. In conclusion, we did not find evidence of an impact of postdoctoral researchers and supervisors on student research practices.Trial registration: NCT04263805, NCT04263506 (registration date 11 February 2020).

The impact of COVID-19 on open access publishing in radiology and nuclear medicine: an in-depth analysis

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous initiatives have been implemented to ensure open access availability of COVID-19-related articles to make published articles accessible for anyone. This study aimed to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on open-access publishing in radiology and nuclear medicine. We conducted a comprehensive analysis of articles and reviews published in these fields during the COVID-19 publishing era using the Web of Science database. We analyzed several indicators between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 related articles, including the number and percentage of open-access articles, the top ten cited articles, and the number of reviews. In total, 67,100 articles were published in radiology and nuclear medicine between January 2020 and June 2022. Among those, more than half (51.1%) were open-access articles. Among these publications, 2,336 were COVID-19-related, and 64,764 were non-COVID-19-related. However, articles related to COVID-19 had an open access rate of 91.5%, compared to only 49.6% of the non-COVID-19-related articles. Moreover, COVID-19-related articles had a higher percentage of highly cited and hot papers compared to articles not related to COVID-19. Moreover, most highly cited studies were related to chest computerized tomography (CT) scan findings in COVID-19 patients. The findings emphasize the significant proportion of open access COVID-19-related publications in radiology and nuclear medicine, facilitating widespread and timely access to everyone.

COVID-19 retracted publications on retraction watch: A systematic survey of their pre-prints and citations

Background

Studies related to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were frequently published as pre-prints prior to undergoing peer-review. However, several publications were later retracted due to ethical concerns or study misconduct. Although these studies have been retracted, the availability of their corresponding pre-prints has never been formally investigated, and may result in the spread of misinformation if they are being used to inform decision-making.

Methods

Our objective was to conduct a systematic survey of retracted COVID-19 publications listed on the Retraction Watch database as of August 15th, 2021. We assessed the availability of corresponding pre-prints for retracted publications, and documented the number of citations and online views.

Results

Our study included 140 retracted COVID-19 publications, and we could not retrieve corresponding pre-prints for 132 retracted publications in our study (94%). Although we were unable to find the majority of pre-prints, they had already been disseminated, with a maximal citation count of 593 and Altmetric score of 558,928.

Conclusion

While it is reassuring that most corresponding pre-prints could not be retrieved, our study highlights the need for online platforms and journals to employ quality assurance methods to prevent the spread of misinformation through citation of retracted papers.

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.

Epidemiology and the Covid-19 pandemic: opportunities to review trajectories and plan for the future

The Covid-19 pandemic has caused substantial changes in various spheres of academic life. Epidemiology can use the experiences accumulated in this period as an opportunity to plan for its future. Facing a pandemic requires the production of explanatory theories about the pandemic process and its unequal manifestation in the population. In this sense, Epidemiology needs to strengthen its scientific foundations and recognize the values and limits of its approaches. Thus, it is essential to strengthen the links with other disciplines. A new teaching model can be produced from pandemic experiences, including transversal contents, such as preparation for responses to natural and technological disasters, like epidemics and pandemics, and scientific communication. The teaching of Epidemiology needs to be contextualized with the bases of Collective Health, reinforcing its commitment to the translation and application of knowledge in order to improve people’s health and lives.

Epidemiologia e pandemia de Covid-19: oportunidades para rever trajetórias e planejar o futuro

A pandemia de Covid-19 provocou modificações substanciais em diversas esferas da vida acadêmica. A Epidemiologia pode utilizar as experiências acumuladas nesse período como oportunidade para planejar seu futuro. O enfrentamento de uma pandemia exige a produção de teorias explicativas sobre o processo pandêmico e sua expressão desigual na população. Nesse sentido, a Epidemiologia necessita fortalecer seus fundamentos científicos e reconhecer os valores e limites de suas abordagens. Nesse caminho, é essencial o fortalecimento dos elos com outras disciplinas. Um novo modelo de ensino pode ser produzido por meio das experiências ao longo da pandemia, integrando conteúdos transversais, como a preparação para a resposta a desastres naturais e de origem tecnológica, incluindo epidemias e pandemias e a comunicação científica. O ensino da Epidemiologia precisa ser contextualizado com as bases da Saúde Coletiva, reforçando seu compromisso com a tradução e a aplicação do conhecimento para a melhoria da saúde e da vida das pessoas.

Characteristics of Retracted Research Articles About COVID-19 vs Other Topics

This cross-sectional study compares the author and journal characteristics of retracted articles on COVID-19 with retracted articles from other topics.

Sustained Rise in Retractions in the Life Sciences Literature during the Pandemic Years 2020 and 2021

The COVID-19 pandemic has been devastating to all human endeavors, and scientific research has not been spared. We queried how the retraction of publications might have been affected during the pandemic years 2020–2021. Searches performed with Retraction Watch Database (RWD) revealed that the total number of retractions (as proxied by retraction-related notices) rose steadily from 2013 into the pandemic years 2020–2021. Interestingly, while retractions in the physical and social sciences tapered during 2020–2021, those of the basic life sciences and health sciences showed robust increases in 2020, with the former maintaining a steep rise in 2021. This rise in retractions belied a tapering of total relevant publications in the same year and is confirmed with a complementary search strategy in Scopus. The retraction rate in the medical sciences, particularly those relating to infectious disease, is clearly affected by the anomalous high retraction rate of COVID-19-related papers. However, the sustained increase in the retraction rate of the basic life sciences papers, could be due, at least partly, to retraction spikes in several journals. The rise in retractions in the life and medical sciences could be attributed to heightened post-publication peer review of papers in online platforms such as PubPeer, where numerous problematic papers have been revealed.

Are We Sure We Fully Understand What an Infodemic Is? A Global Perspective on Infodemiological Problems

Infodemic is defined as an information epidemic that can lead to engaging in dangerous behavior. Although the most striking manifestations of the latter occurred on social media, some studies show that dismisinformation is significantly influenced by numerous additional factors, both web-based and offline. These include social context, age, education, personal knowledge and beliefs, mood, psychological defense mechanisms, media resonance, and how news and information are presented to the public. Moreover, various incorrect scientific practices related to disclosure, publication, and training can also fuel such a phenomenon. Therefore, in this opinion article, we seek to provide a comprehensive overview of the issues that need to be addressed to bridge the gap between science and the public and build resilience to the infodemic. In particular, we stress that the infodemic cannot be curbed by simply disproving every single false or misleading information since the belief system and the cultural or educational background are chief factors regarding the success of fake news. For this reason, we believe that the process of forming a critical sense should begin with children in schools (ie, when the mind is more receptive to new ways of learning). Furthermore, we also believe that themes such as scientific method and evidence should be at the heart of the university education of a future scientist. Indeed, both the public and scientists must be educated on the concepts of evidence and validity of sources, as well as learning how to dialogue appropriately with each other. Finally, we believe that the scientific publishing process could be greatly improved by paying reviewers for their work and by ceasing to pursue academic success at all costs.

Bibliometric and Altmetric Analysis of Retracted Articles on COVID-19

BACKGROUND

With greater use of social media platforms for promotions of research articles, retracted articles tend to receive approximately the same attention. We systematically analyzed retracted articles from retractionwatch.com to look at the Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS) garnered over a period of time in order to highlight the role of social media and other platforms in advertising retracted articles and its effect on the spread of misinformation.

METHODS

Retractionwatch.com was searched for coronavirus disease 2019 related retracted papers on November 6th, 2021. Articles were excluded based on lack of digital object identifier (DOI), if they were preprint articles, absent AAS, and incomplete AAS of pre retraction, post retraction, or both scores.

RESULTS

A total of 196 articles were found on the Retraction Watch website of which 189 were retracted papers and 7 were expression of concern (EOC). We then identified 175 articles after excluding those that did not have a DOI and 30 preprint articles were also excluded giving 145 articles. Further exclusion of articles with absent AAS and incomplete AAS resulted in a total of 22 articles.

CONCLUSION

Retracted articles receive significant online attention. Twitter and Mendeley were the most popular medium for publicizing retracted articles, therefore more focus should be given by journals and their Twitter accounts to discredit all their retracted articles. Preprints should be reconsidered as a whole by journals due to the huge risk they carry in disseminating false information.

SARS-CoV-2 Variants and Clinical Outcomes: A Systematic Review

Background: From the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, new SARS-CoV-2 variants have emerged that potentially affect transmissibility, severity, and immune evasion in infected individuals. In the present systematic review, the impact of different SARS-CoV-2 variants on clinical outcomes is analyzed. Methods: A systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020. Two databases (PubMed and ScienceDirect) were searched for original articles published from 1 January 2020 to 23 November 2021. The articles that met the selection criteria were appraised according to the Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Results: Thirty-three articles were included, involving a total of 253,209 patients and 188,944 partial or complete SARS-CoV-2 sequences. The most reported SARS-CoV-2 variants showed changes in the spike protein, N protein, RdRp and NSP3. In 28 scenarios, SARS-CoV-2 variants were found to be associated with a mild to severe or even fatal clinical outcome, 15 articles reported such association to be statistically significant. Adjustments in eight of them were made for age, sex and other covariates. Conclusions: SARS-CoV-2 variants can potentially have an impact on clinical outcomes; future studies focused on this topic should consider several covariates that influence the clinical course of the disease.

Transparency: A central principle underpinning trustworthy guidelines

•

The development of trustworthy guidelines follows a range of principles.

•

In response to the Covid pandemic there was an urgent need for guidelines to respond to a wide range of clinical and public health challenges; timelines became contracted and evidence was frequently lacking or of poor quality.

•

For guideline development the World Health Organization, it became clear that one of the most important principles to adhere to is transparency as this underpins all other principles of guideline development.

Research integrity in times of pandemic

In 1994, Douglas Graham Altman, one of the greatest statisticians of all time, wrote "We need less research, better research, and research done for good reasons". Twenty-seven years ago, Altman pointed out that the system favored unscientific behavior and that "bad science" was easy to publish, highlighting the financial implications of this amount of poorly designed research, with erroneous statistical methods, unrepresentative samples, or fraud. The covid-19 pandemic has once again put clinical research in check. The pressure for urgent responses was unprecedented. Knowledge of the origin of the virus, the transmission dynamics, the pathophysiology of the disease, efficient pharmacological and non-pharmacological measures would be counted in lives - and economies, and in governments.