The limitations of retraction notices and the heroic acts of authors who correct the scholarly record: An analysis of retractions of papers published from 1975 to 2019

Vuong, Quan‐Hoang

doi:10.1002/leap.1282

Cited by 68 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The authors thus concluded that retraction notices need to be more informative, and a statement regarding limitations should be required. 17 In our study, we found that although most journals issued a retraction notice, inconsistency and lack of information regarding retracted articles remain prevalent. These studies, in addition to our results, demonstrate that there is still much work to be done to improve transparency and information about retractions for readers of scientific literature.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 71%

Retracted articles in the obstetrics literature: lessons from the past to change the future

Bennett

Chambers

Al-Hafez

et al. 2020

American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: The publication of invalid scientific findings may have profound implications on medical practice. As the incidence of article retractions has increased over the last 2 decades, organizations have formed, including Retraction Watch, to improve the transparency of scientific publishing. At present, the incidence of article retraction in the obstetrics and maternal-fetal medicine literature is unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the number of retracted articles within the obstetrics and maternal-fetal medicine literature from the PubMed and Retraction Watch databases and examine reasons for retraction. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective review of the PubMed and Retraction Watch databases was performed to identify retracted articles in the obstetrics and maternal-fetal medicine literature from indexation through December 31, 2019. The primary outcome was defined as the number of identified articles and reason for retraction. Within PubMed, articles were identified using a medical subheading search for articles categorized as withdrawn or retracted. In addition, the Retraction Watch database was queried and nonobstetrical articles were excluded. The reason for retraction was classified according to the categories listed in Retraction Watch. The subject matter was classified on the basis of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine criteria. Data were collected from retracted articles for author name, country, journal name and impact factor, year of publication and retraction, study type, and response of the publishing journal. Descriptive statistics were performed. RESULTS: Of the 519 obstetrics and gynecology articles in Retraction Watch, 122 (23.5%) were specific to the obstetrics and maternal-fetal medicine specialties. In addition, 39 (32.0%) were identified from PubMed, all of which were included in Retraction Watch. There was a median time to retraction of 1 (range, 0e17) year, with a median of 3 citations per article (range, 0e145). In addition, the median journal impact factor was 2.2 (range, 0.1e27.6), with median first and senior author Hirsch index values of 6.0 and 13.5, respectively. Most articles were original research (n¼80; 65.6%), specifically retrospective studies (n¼11; 9.0%), case reports (n¼19; 15.6%), prospective studies (n¼18; 14.8%), randomized controlled trials (n¼11; 9%), basic science (n¼18; 14.8%), and systematic review or meta-analysis (n¼3; 2.5%). Of eligible articles, 32 (26.2%) were published in journals with an impact factor 4, and 21 articles (17.2%) were published in the top 10 leading impact factor obstetrics and gynecology journals. Most retractions were for contentrelated issues (n¼87; 71.3%), including 21.3% (n¼26) for article duplication, 18.9% (n¼23) for plagiarism, and 16.4% (n¼20) for errors in results or methods. Additional reasons included author misconduct (n¼12; 9.8%), nonreproducible results (n¼11; 9.0%), and falsification (n¼8; 6.6%). The most common journal response was an issued statement of retraction (n¼82; 67.2%). Lack of retraction notice and l...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 71%

Retracted articles in the obstetrics literature: lessons from the past to change the future

Bennett

Chambers

Al-Hafez

et al. 2020

American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many databases and search engines, such as Web of Science, Google Scholar and Scopus provide nearly no warning of the retraction in their search results (Teixeira da Silva and Bornemann-Cimenti 2017; van der Vet and Nijveen 2016). In addition, although papers are retracted for different reasons, including selfretraction by the authors and various types of scientific misconduct such as data fabrication, data falsification, unethical author conduct, and plagiarism (Samp et al 2012), about 10% of retraction notices do not indicate the reason for the retraction (Bozzo et al 2017;Moylan and Kowalczuk 2016;Vuong 2020), making it difficult for a reader to determine the scope or severity of the problem (Guengerich 2015;Marcus and Oransky 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Continued post-retraction citation of a fraudulent clinical trial report, 11 years after it was retracted for falsifying data

Schneider

Hill

et al. 2020

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a case study of long-term post-retraction citation to falsified clinical trial data (Matsuyama et al. in Chest 128(6):3817–3827, 2005. 10.1378/chest.128.6.3817), demonstrating problems with how the current digital library environment communicates retraction status. Eleven years after its retraction, the paper continues to be cited positively and uncritically to support a medical nutrition intervention, without mention of its 2008 retraction for falsifying data. To date no high quality clinical trials reporting on the efficacy of omega-3 fatty acids on reducing inflammatory markers have been published. Our paper uses network analysis, citation context analysis, and retraction status visibility analysis to illustrate the potential for extended propagation of misinformation over a citation network, updating and extending a case study of the first 6 years of post-retraction citation (Fulton et al. in Publications 3(1):7–26, 2015. 10.3390/publications3010017). The current study covers 148 direct citations from 2006 through 2019 and their 2542 second-generation citations and assesses retraction status visibility of the case study paper and its retraction notice on 12 digital platforms as of 2020. The retraction is not mentioned in 96% (107/112) of direct post-retraction citations for which we were able to conduct citation context analysis. Over 41% (44/107) of direct post-retraction citations that do not mention the retraction describe the case study paper in detail, giving a risk of diffusing misinformation from the case paper. We analyze 152 second-generation citations to the most recent 35 direct citations (2010–2019) that do not mention the retraction but do mention methods or results of the case paper, finding 23 possible diffusions of misinformation from these non-direct citations to the case paper. Link resolving errors from databases show a significant challenge in a reader reaching the retraction notice via a database search. Only 1/8 databases (and 1/9 database records) consistently resolved the retraction notice to its full-text correctly in our tests. Although limited to evaluation of a single case (N = 1), this work demonstrates how retracted research can continue to spread and how the current information environment contributes to this problem.

show abstract

“…To improve dissemination and reporting of the scholarly record, some have argued that journals should make authors' study limitations public and freely available [5]. Typically, limitations are detailed in the Discussion section [6], although occasionally they may also appear in the Abstract [3].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A study’s got to know its limitations

Gooch¹,

Warren-Jones²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: All research has room for improvement, but authors do not always clearly acknowledge the limitations of their work. In this brief report, we sought to identify the prevalence of limitations statements in the medRxiv COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 dataset. Methods: We combined automated methods with manual review to analyse manuscripts for the presence, or absence, either of a defined limitations section in the text, or as part of the general discussion. Results: We identified a structured limitations statement in 28% of the manuscripts, and overall 52% contained at least one mention of a study limitation. Over one-third of manuscripts contained none of the terms that might typically be associated with reporting of limitations. Overall our method performed with precision of 0.97 and recall of 0.91. Conclusion:The presence or absence of limitations statements can be identified with reasonable confidence using automated tools. We suggest that it might be beneficial to require a defined, structured statement about study limitations, either as part of the submission process, or clearly delineated within the manuscript.

show abstract

The limitations of retraction notices and the heroic acts of authors who correct the scholarly record: An analysis of retractions of papers published from 1975 to 2019

Cited by 68 publications

References 50 publications

Retracted articles in the obstetrics literature: lessons from the past to change the future

Retracted articles in the obstetrics literature: lessons from the past to change the future

Continued post-retraction citation of a fraudulent clinical trial report, 11 years after it was retracted for falsifying data

A study’s got to know its limitations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About