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; 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%), etc. More than 71% of the articles acknowledged funding support; the NIH (US) 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 two months to almost 14 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 Only 15 % of recommendations were withdrawn either after dissents were made by other FMs or after retractions.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 personalized mechanism to alert users who have accessed the recommended articles on their subsequent retractions, concerns, or corrections

Multiple publications: The main reason for the retraction of papers in computer science

This paper intends to review the reasons for the retraction over the last decade. The paper particularly aims at reviewing these reasons with reference to computer science field to assist authors in comprehending the style of writing. To do that, a total of thirty-six retracted papers found on the Web of Science within Jan 2007 through July 2017 are explored. Given the retraction notices which are based on ten common reasons, this paper classifies the two main categories, namely random and nonrandom retraction. Retraction due to the duplication of publications scored the highest proportion of all other reasons reviewed

The reproducibility of biomedical research: sleepers awake!

There is increasing concern about the reliability of biomedical research, with recent articles suggesting that up to 85% of research funding is wasted. This article argues that an important reason for this is the inappropriate use of molecular techniques, particularly in the field of RNA biomarkers, coupled with a tendency to exaggerate the importance of research findings

Does retraction after misconduct have an impact on citations? A pre–post study

Background: Retracted articles continue to be cited after retraction, and this could have consequences for the scientific community and general population alike. This study was conducted to analyse the association of retraction on citations received by retracted papers due to misconduct using two-time frames: during a postretraction period equivalent to the time the article had been in print before retraction; and during the total postretraction period. Methods: Quasiexperimental, pre-post evaluation study. A total of 304 retracted original articles and literature reviews indexed in MEDLINE fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Articles were required to have been published in a journal indexed in MEDLINE from January 2013 through December 2015 and been retracted between January 2014 and December 2016. The main outcome was the number of citations received before and after retraction. Results were broken down by journal quartile according to impact factor and the most cited papers during the preretraction period were specifically analysed. Results: There was an increase in postretraction citations when compared with citations received preretraction. There were some exceptions however: first, citations received by articles published in first-quartile journals decreased immediately after retraction (p<0.05), only to increase again after some time had elapsed; and second, postretraction citations decreased significantly in the case of articles that had received many citations before their retraction (p<0.05). Conclusions: The results indicate that retraction of articles has no association on citations in the long term, since the retracted articles continue to be cited, thus circumventing their retraction

Retracted papers originating from paper mills: cross sectional study

OBJECTIVES To describe retracted papers originating from paper mills, including their characteristics, visibility, and impact over time, and the journals in which they were published. DESIGN Cross sectional study. SETTING The Retraction Watch database was used for identification of retracted papers from paper mills, Web of Science was used for the total number of published papers, and data from Journal Citation Reports were collected to show characteristics of journals. PARTICIPANTS All paper mill papers retracted from 1 January 2004 to 26 June 2022 were included in the study. Papers bearing an expression of concern were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Descriptive statistics were used to characterise the sample and analyse the trend of retracted paper mill papers over time, and to analyse their impact and visibility by reference to the number of citations received. RESULTS 1182 retracted paper mill papers were identified. The publication of the first paper mill paper was in 2004 and the first retraction was in 2016; by 2021, paper mill retractions accounted for 772 (21.8%) of the 3544 total retractions. Overall, retracted paper mill papers were mostly published in journals of the second highest Journal Citation Reports quartile for impact factor (n=529 (44.8%)) and listed four to six authors (n=602 (50.9%)). Of the 1182 papers, almost all listed authors of 1143 (96.8%) paper mill retractions came from Chinese institutions and 909 (76.9%) listed a hospital as a primary affiliation. 15 journals accounted for 812 (68.7%) of 1182 paper mill retractions, with one journal accounting for 166 (14.0%). Nearly all (n=1083, 93.8%) paper mill retractions had received at least one citation since publication, with a median of 11 (interquartile range 5-22) citations received. CONCLUSIONS Papers retracted originating from paper mills are increasing in frequency, posing a problem for the research community. Retracted paper mill papers most commonly originated from China and were published in a small number of journals. Nevertheless, detected paper mill papers might be substantially different from those that are not detected. New mechanisms are needed to identify and avoid this relatively new type of misconduct

PubPeer and Self-Correction of Science: Male-Led Publications More Prone to Retraction

This article has a dual objective. Firstly, it aims to investigate whether gender diversity in publications reviewed on Pubpeer has an impact on the (non)retraction of those publications. Secondly, it seeks to analyze the reasons for retractions and examine if there are disparities in retractions based on male-female collaborations. To achieve this, the study utilized a sample of 93,563 publications discussed on Pubpeer spanning the period from 2012 to 2021. The findings reveal that among the reviewed publications, 5% (4,513) were retracted. The concentration index and regression results indicate that publications authored solely by men or led by male authors are 20% to 29% more likely to be retracted compared to those authored solely by women. Regarding the reasons for retractions, the results show that regardless of gender, authors, when working alone, are more prone to engaging in activities such as fake peer review or plagiarism. Women are more concentrated in image manipulation and data errors, while men are more involved in article duplication. Furthermore, the results demonstrate an inverse relationship between the number of authors and retractions, suggesting that a higher number of authors may facilitate better publication control and reduce the temptation for misconduct

Reproducibility crisis in science: causes and possible solutions

Part I. Claims to knowledge require justification. In science, such justification is made possible by the ability to reproduce or replicate experiments, thereby confirming their validity. Additionally, reproducibility serves as a self-correcting tool in science as it weeds out faulty experiments. It is therefore essential that experimental studies be replicated and confirmed. Recently, attempts to reproduce studies in several fields have failed, leading to what has been referred to as "a crisis of reproducibility." This crisis is largely a result of the current culture in the scientific world. Specifically, it is a result of a system that incentivizes individual success in the form of publications in high-impact journals over collaboration and careful conductance of research. This environment contributes to the crisis of reproducibility by increasing biases, incentivizing researchers to engage in manipulative statistics, decreasing quality control and transparency, and increasing the likelihood of researchers engaging in fraudulent behavior. Possible solutions to the problem of irreproducibility could tackle individual factors. A more prudent approach would be to focus on changing the current culture in the scientific world. Increased transparency had been suggested as a way to solve this problem. There is currently a movement advocating for increased transparency in science through "open science." Part II. Retraction of scientific papers due to evidence of research misconduct is on the rise, having increased tenfold from 2000 to 2009. Previous work on this topic focused on published retraction notices, using notices to identify the percent of retracted articles that were caused by research misconduct. This study utilized a different approach. Using the Office of Research Integrity database, we first identified publications that resulted from research misconduct. We then searched those articles to determine whether they were indeed retracted. Once retraction notices were identified, they were scored based on scoring elements reflecting guidelines for transparency. Lastly, we investigated whether a correlation exists between the quality of a retraction notice and journal impact factor. Our findings suggest that 21% of papers containing data derived from scientific misconduct are not retracted. Moreover, the quality of retraction notices varies, with some elements more likely to be present than others. No significant correlation between retraction notices and journal impact factor was found

Editorial research and the publication process in biomedicine and health: Report from the Esteve Foundation Discussion Group, December 2012.

Despite the fact that there are more than twenty thousand biomedical journals in the world, research into the work of editors and publication process in biomedical and health care journals is rare. In December 2012, the Esteve Foundation, a non-profit scientific institution that fosters progress in pharmacotherapy by means of scientific communication and discussion organized a discussion group of 7 editors and/or experts in peer review biomedical publishing. They presented findings of past editorial research, discussed the lack of competitive funding schemes and specialized journals for dissemination of editorial research, and reported on the great diversity of misconduct and conflict of interest policies, as well as adherence to reporting guidelines. Furthermore, they reported on the reluctance of editors to investigate allegations of misconduct or increase the level of data sharing in health research. In the end, they concluded that if editors are to remain gatekeepers of scientific knowledge they should reaffirm their focus on the integrity of the scientific record and completeness of the data they publish. Additionally, more research should be undertaken to understand why many journals are not adhering to editorial standards, and what obstacles editors face when engaging in editorial research