Biased, wrong and counterfeited evidences published during the COVID-19 pandemic, a systematic review of retracted COVID-19 papers

Abstract

In 2020 COVID-19 led to an unprecedented stream of papers being submitted to journals. Scientists and physicians all around the globe were in need for information about this new disease. In this climate, many articles were accepted after extremely fast peer-reviews to provide the scientific community with the latest discoveries and knowledge. Unfortunately, this also led to articles retraction due to authors’ misconduct or errors in methodology and/or conclusions. The aim of this study is to investigate the number and characteristics of retracted papers, and to explore the main causes that led to retraction. We conducted a systematic review on retracted articles, using PubMed as data source. Our inclusion criteria were the following: English-language retracted articles that reported original data, results, opinions or hypotheses on COVID-19 and Sars-CoV-2. Twenty-seven retracted articles were identified, mainly reporting observational studies and opinion pieces. Many articles published during the first year of the pandemic have been retracted, mainly due to the authors' scientific misconduct. Duplications, plagiarism, frauds and absence of consent, were the main reasons for retractions. In modern medicine, researchers are required to publish frequently, and, especially during situations like the COVID-19 pandemic, when articles were rapidly published, gaps in peer-reviews system and in the path to scientific publication arose.

Imitation versus serendipity in ranking dynamics

“…For instance, when the COVID-19 pandemic broke out it immediately became—through imitation—the main theme of research in most STEM fields, and in just a few months an incredible volume of papers on this subject were published [ 28 ]. Notably, the rush led to several documented errors in methodology and conclusions [ 29 ]. In fact, in a ‘publish or perish’ [ 30 ] environment incentives—both at the level of authors and publishers—often favour condensation-like phenomena, i.e.…”

Designing, refining and reflecting on 3 years of daily evidence surveillance for Australia's living national COVID‐19 guidelines

“…The rush to publish, spurred on by the urgency of the pandemic, has been held partly responsible for the high rate of studies that were subject to expressions of concern or retracted [17]. A high‐profile example was the registry analysis of hydroxychloroquine for treating COVID‐19 published in The Lancet in May 2020 and retracted within a matter of weeks when the integrity of the data was questioned [18].…”

Blockchain for the Healthcare Supply Chain: A Systematic Literature Review

“…Fraud and misconduct are common in science and in the healthcare industry [8,9]. Substandard or tampered-with medical products hinder progress toward achieving the Emerging technology needs to be taken into account by clinicians, given that upcoming technologies are looming over their everyday practice.…”

“…Fraud and misconduct are common in science and in the healthcare industry [8,9]. Substandard or tampered-with medical products hinder progress toward achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).…”