Exploring the characteristics, global distribution and reasons for retraction of published articles involving human research participants: a literature survey

Methodological and Statistical Considerations for Cross-Sectional, Case-Control, and Cohort Studies

Epidemiological studies are essential in medicine and public health as they help identify risk factors and causes of diseases. Additionally, they are key to planning, implementing, and evaluating health interventions aimed at preventing and controlling the spread of diseases. Among these studies, analytical observational studies, such as cross-sectional, case-control, and cohort studies, are the most used. The validity of their results largely depends on the robustness of the design, execution, and statistical analysis. Objective: The objective of this study is to examine the most common errors in the selection of methodological design and statistical tests in analytical observational studies and to provide recommendations to correct them. Methodology: A comprehensive review of the available literature on methodology in epidemiological observational studies was conducted, focusing on cross-sectional, case-control, and cohort studies. Common errors in the selection of designs and statistical tests were identified and analyzed. Results and Conclusions: Errors in the selection of methodological design and statistical tests are common in epidemiological observational studies. Based on the identified errors, a series of recommendations is provided to improve the selection of methodological design and statistical tests, thereby increasing the reliability of the results in cross-sectional, case-control, and cohort studies.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Comprehensive analysis of retracted journal articles in the field of veterinary medicine and animal health

Background

Retractions are a key proxy for recognizing errors in research and publication and for reconciling misconduct in the scientific literature. The underlying factors associated with retractions can provide insight and guide policy for journal editors and authors within a discipline. The goal of this study was to systematically review and analyze retracted articles in veterinary medicine and animal health. A database search for retractions of articles with a veterinary/animal health topic, in a veterinary journal, or by veterinary institution-affiliated authors was conducted from first available records through February 2019 in MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Retraction Watch, and Google Scholar. Annual frequency of retractions, journal and article characteristics, author affiliation and country, reasons for retraction, and retraction outcomes were recorded.

Results

Two-hundred-forty-two articles retracted between 1993 and 2019 were included in the study. Over this period, the estimated rate of retraction increased from 0.03/1000 to 1.07/1000 veterinary articles. Median time from publication to retraction was 478 days (range 0-3653 days). Retracted articles were published in 30 (12.3%) veterinary journals and 132 (81.5%) nonveterinary journals. Veterinary journals had disproportionately more retractions than nonveterinary journals (P = .0155). Authors/groups with ≥2 retractions accounted for 37.2% of retractions. Authors from Iran and China published 19.4 and 18.2% of retracted articles respectively. Authors were affiliated with a faculty of veterinary medicine in 59.1% of retracted articles. Of 242 retractions, 204 (84.3%) were research articles, of which 6.4% were veterinary clinical research. Publication misconduct (plagiarism, duplicate publication, compromised peer review) accounted for 75.6% of retractions, compared with errors (20.6%) and research misconduct (18.2%). Journals published by societies/institutions were less likely than those from commercial publishers to indicate a reason for retraction. Thirty-one percent of HTML articles and 14% of PDFs were available online but not marked as retracted.

Conclusions

The rate of retraction in the field of veterinary and animal health has increased by ~ 10-fold per 1000 articles since 1993, resulting primarily from increased publication misconduct, often by repeat offenders. Veterinary journals and society/institutional journals could benefit from improvement in the quality of retraction notices.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12917-022-03167-x.

What can we learn from retracted studies in the nursing field in the last 20 years? Findings from a scoping review

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE WORK

Literature reviews have summarised the number of retracted studies and guidelines have been developed to prevent this issue. However, available data are scarce in the nursing field. Learning from other experiences may be able to increase awareness of the issue and prevent avoidable errors. Therefore, the intent of this study was to map retracted articles in the nursing field by investigating the reasons for retractions in order to elicit strategies to prevent their occurrence.

METHODS

A scoping review was performed by searching PubMed and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL) for articles published from 2001 to 2021. Quantitative primary and secondary studies related to the nursing field and written in English, with a "retracted article" message and/or presenting a retraction notice, have been included. The main reasons for retraction have been recorded, as well as the main features of the studies retracted.

RESULTS

Out of 274 studies, we detected 26 retractions, of which eight were literature reviews and seven were experimental studies. Editors were the most frequent party requiring retraction. The retracted studies originated from 11 countries and were mostly published (n = 19) in general nursing journals. Scientific misconduct was the main cause of retraction (n = 18), while the remaining retractions were due to other types of errors.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the study retractions were issued by editors and originated mostly from high-scientific output countries. Scientific misconduct represented the principal cause of retraction; from these failures, educational strategies have been identified in order to prevent issues and to increase awareness among researchers and healthcare professionals.

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.

When is lack of scientific integrity a reason for retracting a paper? A case study

OBJECTIVE

The journal received a request to retract a paper reporting the results of a triple-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial. The present and immmediate past editors expand on the journal's decision not to retract this paper in spite of undisputable evidence of scientific misconduct on behalf of one of the investigators.

METHODS

The editors present an ethical reflection on the request to retract this randomized clinical trial with consideration of relevant guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) applied to the unique contextual issues of this case.

RESULTS

In this case, scientific misconduct by a blinded provider of a homeopathy intervention attempted to undermine the study blind. As part of the study, the integrity of the study blind was assessed. Neither participants nor homeopaths were able to identify whether the participant was assigned to homeopathic medicine or placebo. Central to the decision not to retract the paper was the fact that the rigorous scientific design provided evidence that the outcome of the study was not affected by the misconduct. The misconduct itself was thought to be insufficient reason to retract the paper.

CONCLUSION

Retracting a paper of which the outcome is still valid was in itself considered unethical, as it takes away the opportunity to benefit from its results, rendering the whole study useless. In such cases, scientific misconduct is better handled through other professional channels.

Shifting the focus away from binary thinking of statistical significance and towards education for key stakeholders: revisiting the debate on whether it's time to de-emphasize or get rid of statistical significance

There has been a long-standing controversy among scientists regarding the appropriate use of P-values and statistical significance in clinical research. This debate has resurfaced through recent calls to modify the threshold of P-value required to declare significance, or to retire statistical significance entirely. In this article, we revisit the issue by discussing: i) the connection between statistical thinking and evidence-based practice; ii) some history of statistical significance and P-values; iii) some practical challenges with statistical significance or P-value thresholds in clinical research; iv) the on-going debate on what to do with statistical significance; v) suggestions to shift the focus away from binary thinking of statistical significance and towards education for key stakeholders on research essentials including statistical thinking, critical thinking, good reporting, basic clinical research concepts and methods, and more. We then conclude with remarks and illustrations of the potential deleterious public health consequences of poor methods including selective choice of analysis approach and misguided reliance on binary use of P-values to report and interpret scientific findings.

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.

Analysis of biomedical Spanish articles retracted between 1970 and 2018

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

To analyse articles retracted due to irregularities by authors helps to determine the state of scientific integrity of a discipline or country. The Retraction Watch (RW) database is the largest worldwide database on retracted articles. The objective was to determine the reasons for and features of retracted biomedical articles by Spanish authors.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A search was conducted in the RW database of 7 types of scientific articles from 9 biomedicine disciplines -biology, genetics, medicine, microbiology, neurosciences, nutrition, dentistry, public health and toxicology-, with at least one author working in a Spanish centre, and published between 1970 and 2018. The features of the articles and the reasons for their retraction were recorded.

RESULTS

Of the 18,621 retracted articles, 217 (1%) were by Spanish authors; 155 (74%) were on biomedicine and the types of articles of interest. In most cases, there were several reasons for retracting an article. Research misconduct (fabrication, falsification, plagiarism) and duplication were involved in 25% and 35% of the cases, respectively. Twenty-two percent of the articles were retracted due to errors by the authors or the journals. A dentist retracted 18 articles -all from the same journal and in the same year, 2018-, which accounts for 12% of all retracted biomedicine articles.

CONCLUSION

The number of retracted biomedicine articles by Spanish authors is low. Research misconduct was a frequent reason, with a similar percentage of articles retracted due to honest errors.

Building Safe Didactic Dialogues for Action Model: Mobilizing Community with Micronesian Islanders

Background: Despite mandates by the United States (U.S.) government to ensure the inclusion of women and minorities in federally funded research, communities of color continue to participate less frequently than non-Latinx Whites. There is limited research that examines maternal health outcomes and early childhood resources. Pacific Islanders (PI) have grown substantially in a county in the Pacific Northwest region of the U.S. (from 4,419 to 9,248, of which 52% are female). About 62.7% of PI women are not accessing prenatal care in the first trimester, and this is substantially higher than the national target of 22.1%. Researchers found that PI children are leaving school to take care of family obligations. The purpose of the educational innovative project, Building Safe Didactic Dialogues for Action model, was to respond to Micronesian Islanders (MI) parent leaders' need to feel safe and to build a close kinship to encourage dialogue about difficult topics regarding access and utilization of early education systems and prenatal/perinatal health for community-driven model for action planning and solutions. Approach: Popular education tenets were used in the project to be culturally sensitive to the human experience. The MI community health worker outreached to MI parent leaders in an urban area in the Pacific Northwest region of the U.S. Eight partners participated in this project: parent leaders from the MI community-at-large, community partners from the MI Community organization, and academic nurse researchers. Didactic dialogues lasted two hours per session for four. Topics included: collaborative agreements, MI parent leaders' identified needs and existing resources regarding preschool and immunization, parent-child relationship (stress and trauma, adverse childhood experiences), and MI experience regarding prenatal care access and postpartum depression. Group discussion on reflection was used to evaluate utility. Outcomes: Building Safe Didactic Dialogues for Action model was foundational via mobilizing community with MI, trust and rapport building, and engaging in a safe and courageous space for dialogues for action planning and solutions as community and academic partners as stakeholders. Conclusion: Many previously unspoken issues such as abuse, language, and cultural beliefs including barriers were openly shared among all partners. Dynamic thoughts towards identifying needs for change and then planning steps toward creating positive change created an atmosphere of empowerment for change.

Post retraction citations among manuscripts reporting a radiology-imaging diagnostic method

Our study aimed to evaluate the trends of post retraction citations of articles reporting a radiology-imaging diagnostic method and to find if a different pattern exists between manuscripts reporting an ultrasound method and those reporting other radiology diagnostic methods. This study reviewed retractions stored in PubMed on the subject of radiology-imaging diagnosis to identify the motivation, time from publication to retraction, and citations before and after retraction. The PubMed database was searched on June 2017 to retrieve the retracted articles, and the Scopus database was screened to identify the post-retraction citations. The full text was screened to see the type of post-retraction citation (positive/negative) and whether the cited article appears or not as retracted. One hundred and two retractions were identified, representing 3.5% of the retracted articles indexed by PubMed, out of which 54 were included in the analysis. Half of the articles were retracted in the first 24 months after publication, and the number of post retraction citations was higher than the number of citations before retraction in 30 out of 54 cases (US methods: 9/20, other diagnostic methods 21/34, P-value = 0.2312). The plagiarism was the most common reason for retraction (31%), followed by repetitive publication (26%), and errors in data/manuscript (24%). In less than 2% of cases, the retracted articles appear as retracted in the text or reference list, while the negative citation is observed in 4.84% among manuscripts reporting an US diagnostic method and 0.32% among manuscripts reporting a diagnostic method other than US (P-value = 0.0004). No significant differences were observed when post retraction weighted citation index (WCI, no. of citations weighted by citation window) was compared to WCI prior retraction (P-value = 0.5972). In light of the reported results, we enumerated some recommendations that could potentially minimize the referral to retracted studies as valid.

Bioethical Issues in Biostatistical Consulting Study: Additional Findings and Concerns

OBJECTIVES

To determine the frequency and severity of 17 requests for inappropriate analysis and reporting of data that biostatisticians received from researchers in statistical consultations, as indirectly experienced (i.e., either heard about or observed being asked of other biostatisticians).

METHODS

A randomly drawn sample of 522 members of the American Statistical Association who self-identified as consulting biostatisticians were selected to participate in an online survey with the Bioethical Issues in Biostatistical Consulting Questionnaire, specifically developed for this study.

RESULTS

Of the 522 consulting biostatisticians contacted, 390 (74.7%) completed the survey. The top 4 most frequently reported indirectly experienced inappropriate requests rated as "high severity" by at least 50% of the respondents were as follows: 1) proposing a study with a flawed design, including insufficient power; 2) setting aside values when the outcome turns on a few outliers; 3) reporting results of data analysis from only subsets of the data; and 4) overstating the statistical findings well beyond what the data support so that readers are misled.

CONCLUSIONS

This article is a follow-up report to our recently published article on 18 directly experienced inappropriate and/or unethical requests by biomedical researchers of their consulting biostatisticians. These additional survey findings from the Bioethical Issues in Biostatistical Consulting Questionnaire on 17 indirectly experienced inappropriate requests show the following: 1) the widespread nature of inappropriate, if not, frankly unethical requests made by biomedical researchers of their consulting biostatisticians and 2) the urgent need to develop and offer educational programs for biomedical researchers in training to correct these behaviors-be they intentional or accidental. This report speaks to the urgency for developing training programs for new and existing researchers to reduce the frequency of these inappropriate bioethical requests during biostatistical consultations.

KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT

The findings from this U.S. national survey of biostatisticians on inappropriate requests for data analyses by biomedical researchers strongly suggest a need for remedial actions, including 1) new educational modules for in-development and currently employed biomedical researchers, 2) improved institutional environments by research universities and companies regarding job and publication pressures, and 3) inclusion of a collaborating biostatistician as a working research team member from the early planning stages of all biomedical studies.

Challenges of Connecting Chemistry to Pharmacology: Perspectives from Curating the IUPHAR/BPS Guide to PHARMACOLOGY

Connecting chemistry to pharmacology has been an objective of Guide to PHARMACOLOGY (GtoPdb) and its precursor the International Union of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology Database (IUPHAR-DB) since 2003. This has been achieved by populating our database with expert-curated relationships between documents, assays, quantitative results, chemical structures, their locations within the documents, and the protein targets in the assays (D-A-R-C-P). A wide range of challenges associated with this are described in this perspective, using illustrative examples from GtoPdb entries. Our selection process begins with judgments of pharmacological relevance and scientific quality. Even though we have a stringent focus for our small-data extraction, we note that assessing the quality of papers has become more difficult over the last 15 years. We discuss ambiguity issues with the resolution of authors' descriptions of A-R-C-P entities to standardized identifiers. We also describe developments that have made this somewhat easier over the same period both in the publication ecosystem and recent enhancements of our internal processes. This perspective concludes with a look at challenges for the future, including the wider capture of mechanistic nuances and possible impacts of text mining on automated entity extraction.

Interactive CO-learning for Research Engagement and Education (I-COREE) Curriculum to Build Capacity Between Community Partners and Academic Researchers

The voice of diverse communities continues to be minimal in academic research. Few models exist for education and training of new research topics and terminology and building partnership capacity in community-engaged research. Little is known about integrative education and training when building participatory research partnerships for sustainability and developing trust and rapport. Community partners at an Asian community-based health and social services center in a large metropolitan area wanted to explore the cultural context of a health-assistive smart home that monitors and auto-alerts with changes in health. With historical and recent rising trends in culturally insensitive research in several diverse communities, the concept of technology-enabled monitoring in the privacy of one's home brings uncertainty. Academic nurse researchers and community partners co-created a culturally safe integrative education and training curriculum, the Interactive CO-learning for Research Engagement and Education (I-COREE). The purpose was to design, implement, and evaluate the curriculum to respond to the community partners' needs to create a culturally safe space through an integrative education and training to facilitate building partnership capacity for research engagement including developing trust and rapport and addressing uncertainties in health-assistive technologies. Popular education tenets informed the curriculum. Twelve academic and community partners participated, four were team teachers who co-led the session. Implementation of the experiential, multimodal co-learning activities were conducted within ahalf-day. The curriculum evaluation indicated that it helped bridge critical conversations about partners' fears of the unknown, approach culturally sensitive topics safely, and trust and rapport. Key elements may be translatable to other partnerships.