Retracted Publications in Mental Health Literature: Discovery across Bibliographic Platforms

Abstract

INTRODUCTION Retractions are a mechanism by which science corrects itself, withdrawing statements or claims that have proven to be erroneous. However, this requires that such corrections be displayed clearly and consistently. This paper considers how retracted publications in the mental health literature are represented across different platforms. METHODS Using Retraction Watch, we identified 144 retracted articles in the mental health field. We looked across seven platforms to determine the consistency and clarity of the retracted status of these publications. RESULTS Of the 812 records for retracted publications, 40.0% (n=325) did not indicate that the paper had been retracted. Of available PDFs, 26.3% (53/201) did not indicate that the paper had been retracted. Of the 144 articles studied, only 10 were represented as being retracted across all resources through which they were available. DISCUSSION Retracted publications in this sample were inconsistently represented across library resources. While technical solutions, such as Crossmark by Crossref, may help mitigate these challenges, the inconsistent display of retractions has implications for education and outreach. CONCLUSION Our study found that the retractions in our sample were not clearly and consistently represented across sources. Libraries, which provide access to and training in these resources, have a responsibility to raise awareness of these inconsistencies and to advocate for more timely and accurate metadata.

Citing Retracted Papers Affects Education and Librarianship, so Distorted Academic Metrics Need a Correction

“…Despite this, at least until 2017, there was still wide variation among the policies and their implementation among COPE member journals and publishers (Teixeira da Silva & Dobránszki, 2017a). The study by Bakker and Riegelman (2018) expands upon the notion that COPE member journals and publishers are not applying these guidelines rigorously or uniformly. However, COPE (2017) has promised to take more rigorous action, including imposing sanctions against members who violate its policies, with the intention to review its policies in November 2018 based on its practical experience in the interim period.…”

“…At least three levels of action-preventive, corrective, and punitive-should be considered to avoid and/or correct records citing retracted papers that do not clearly indicate their retracted state. The greatest hindering factors are (a) the lack of clear guidelines on how to treat papers that have cited retracted papers and how to correct the record of papers that use such retracted literature; (b) the lack of a uniform, reliable open database on retracted papers, as current efforts to develop such databases, such as the beta version of the Retraction Watch Retraction Database (McCook, 2015;Oransky, 2016) or Open Retractions (http://openretractions.com/) (Smith-Unna & Smith-Unna, 2017), still need significant improvements (Bakker & Riegelman, 2018); and (c) the lack of corrective factors to help prevent distorting both journal-based metrics (JBMs) and author-based metrics (ABMs) by citing retracted papers.…”

“…These include the use of print or outdated copies of papers; the use of outdated or antiquated reference managers; the failure to check databases for updates; the use of pirate websites such as Sci-Hub that might archive papers in their unretracted state; self-citation in the belief that the findings are still valid, or where not all authors of the retracted paper have agreed with the retraction; and the posting of PDFs of papers still in their unretracted state to author-based social media sites such as ResearchGate or Academia.edu. Bakker and Riegelman (2018) demonstrated the extent to which retracted papers are cited by showing that 40% of 812 records for 144 retracted papers in the mental health field, including as much as 26.3% of the published PDFs, did not clearly indicate the retracted status of the papers. Thus, they found, publishers (primarily Committee on Publication Ethics [COPE] members) as well as indexing platforms and databases such as MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EBSCO, Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed, were at fault, albeit all to a different extent.…”

Against the use and publication of contemporary unethical research: the case of Chinese transplant research

“…For retractions to be effective, they must be prompt, transparent, clearly linked to the retracted article, clearly identifiable as a retraction and provide meaningful information about the reasons for retraction. However, there are no consistent systems or processes for identifying retracted articles across multiple electronic and print platforms, 60 retracted articles continue to be cited, 54 61 and there is no mechanism of excluding retracted articles from existing secondary uses of the data such as systematic reviews. Retraction Watch, which currently includes 18 500 retracted articles, provides the largest database of retracted research, going some way to providing a public record.…”

“…62 However Retraction Watch lacks secure ongoing funding and is not integrated across multiple bibliographic platforms, thereby hindering its usability and effectiveness. Technical solutions may help to make retractions more robust and consistent, 60 but we believe that retraction should not be relied on as the sole mechanism of managing unethical research.…”