Challenges in Identifying the Retracted Status of an Article

Suelzer, Elizabeth; Deal, Jennifer A.; Hanus, Karen L.; Ruggeri, Barbara; Witkowski, Elizabeth

doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.15648

Cited by 25 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…while some progress has been made with citation management systems labelling retracted articles-for instance, zotero now collaborates with Retraction watch to flag retracted papers (Oransky 2019)online research databases remain highly varied. while some consistently label retracted journals (for instance, pubMed labels 100 percent), others do not (proQuest psycINFO labels 4 percent; Suelzer et al 2021). Furthermore, retracted articles are not currently labelled in Google Scholar.…”

Section: Legitimate Scientistsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reducing Health Misinformation in Science: A Call to Arms

Swire‐Thompson¹,

Lazer²

2022

The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Scie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The public often turns to science for accurate health information, which, in an ideal world, would be error free. However, limitations of scientific institutions and scientific processes can sometimes amplify misinformation and disinformation. The current review examines four mechanisms through which this occurs: (1) predatory journals that accept publications for monetary gain but do not engage in rigorous peer review; (2) pseudoscientists who provide scientific- sounding information but whose advice is inaccurate, unfalsifiable, or inconsistent with the scientific method; (3) occasions when legitimate scientists spread misinformation or disinformation; and (4) miscommunication of science by the media and other communicators. We characterize this article as a “call to arms,” given the urgent need for the scientific information ecosystem to improve. Improvements are necessary to maintain the public’s trust in science, foster robust discourse, and encourage a well-educated citizenry.

show abstract

Section: Legitimate Scientistsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reducing Health Misinformation in Science: A Call to Arms

Swire‐Thompson¹,

Lazer²

2022

The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Scie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While a previous interrupted time-series analysis has sho wn that retraction does reduce the number of citations of RCTs [22], the present results indicate that inappropriate citations still prevail. Indeed, retraction is sometimes not reflected in PubMed for a long time [23], and in some cases, it is hard to identify retraction information even in journal web pages [24]. Researchers should check carefully not only the searched abstracts and retrieved full text files but also the journal web pages [25].…”

Section: Potential Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of retracted randomised controlled trials on systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines: a meta-epidemiological study

Kataoka

Banno

Tsujimoto

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To investigate whether and when the correction is done in Systematic Reviews (SRs) and Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) when their included Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) have been retracted. Design A meta-epidemiological study. Data sources The Retraction Watch Database. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies SRs and CPGs citing the retracted RCTs on Web of Science. Review methods We investigated how often the retracted RCTs were cited in SRs and CPGs. We also investigated whether and when such SRs and CPGs corrected themselves by visually inspecting their current web pages. We summarized the proportion of correction and the time from retraction to correction. Results We identified 98 retracted RCTs as well as 360 articles (335 SRs and 25 CPGs) citing them. Among the 360 articles, 157 (44%) were published after the retraction, 203 (56%) were published before retraction. Among 77 articles published citing already retracted RCTs in their evidence synthesis without caution, none corrected themselves after publication. Of 203 articles published before retraction, 149 included RCTs that were later retracted in their evidence synthesis. Among them, one SR was retracted due to plagiarism. Only 5% of SRs (6/130) and 11% of CPGs (2/18) corrected their results. Conclusions A large number of SRs and CPGs included already retracted RCTs without caution and never corrected themselves. When SRs and CPGs had included RCTs which were later retracted, only a small minority corrected their evidence syntheses. The scientific community, including publishers and researchers, should make systematic and concerted efforts to remove the impact of retracted RCTs.

show abstract

“…Information about retraction needs to move across different industry information providers (publishers, abstracting and indexing services, scholarly search engines, etc.). However, currently this need is challenged by non-robust dissemination, inconsistent information, and inconsistent presentation of retraction status information Suelzer et al, , 2021.…”

Section: Develop a Systematic Cross-industry Approach To Ensure The Public Availability Of Consistent Standardized Interoperable And Timementioning

confidence: 99%

Recommendations from the Reducing the Inadvertent Spread of Retracted Science: Shaping a Research and Implementation Agenda Project

Schneider¹,

Woods²,

Proescholdt³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Retracted research is published work that is withdrawn, removed, or otherwise invalidated from the scientific and scholarly record. This may occur for many different reasons, which can include error, misconduct, or fraud. Retracting research is intended to stop its continued citation and use, but many retracted papers continue to be used.Retracted research that is integrated into the scientific publication network via citations—either before or after retraction—enables the inadvertent propagation of potentially unsupported or fabricated data, fundamental errors, and unreproducible results, or can lead to misattribution of results or ideas (e.g., in cases of retraction due to dual publication, plagiarism, or ownership). Research over the past decade has identified a number of factors contributing to the unintentional spread of retracted research. Many retracted papers are not marked as retracted on publisher and aggregator sites, and retracted articles may still be found in readers’ PDF libraries, including in reference management systems such as Zotero, EndNote, and Mendeley. Most publishers do not systematically surveil bibliographies of submitted manuscripts, and most editors do not query whether a citation to a retracted paper is justified. When citing retracted papers, authors frequently do not indicate retraction status in bibliographies or in-text citations.The goal of the Reducing the Inadvertent Spread of Retracted Science: Shaping a Research and Implementation Agenda (RISRS) project is to develop an actionable agenda for reducing the inadvertent spread of retracted science. This includes identifying how the gatekeepers of scientific publications can monitor and disseminate retraction status and determining what other actions are feasible and relevant.The RISRS process included an exploratory environment scan, a scoping review of empirical literature, and successive rounds of stakeholder consultation, culminating in a three-part online workshop (October 26, November 9, and November 16, 2020) that brought together a diverse body of 70 stakeholders to engage in collaborative problem solving and dialogue. Workshop discussions were seeded by materials derived from stakeholder interviews and short original discussion pieces contributed by stakeholders. The online workshop resulted in a set of recommendations to address the complexities of retracted research throughout the scholarly communications ecosystem. Recommendations were iteratively updated and developed through a series of surveys and drafts as well as at a followup meeting online February 16, 2021.The RISRS team solicited feedback from presentations to NISOPlus, the Society for Scholarly Publishing, and the European Association of Science Editors. Implementation actions have started through a COPE task force on taxonomy and discussions about a proposed National Information Standards Organization (NISO) Work Item. We welcome your feedback via the project website https://infoqualitylab.org/projects/risrs2020/ or by email to jodi@illinois.edu. We encourage you to disseminate these recommendations and to envision how you, in your role, and in collaborative partnerships, can make a difference. For instance, you might help form a professional working group to further develop or refine these recommendations; present about retraction and related issues at professional and academic meetings; take on an implementation or policy project; or outline further research to be conducted. Recommendations1. Develop a systematic cross-industry approach to ensure the public availability of consistent, standardized, interoperable, and timely information about retractions.2. Recommend a taxonomy of retraction categories/classifications and corresponding retraction metadata that can be adopted by all stakeholders.3. Develop best practices for coordinating the retraction process to enable timely, fair, unbiased outcomes.4. Educate stakeholders about publication correction processes including retraction and about pre- and post-publication stewardship of the scholarly record.

show abstract

Challenges in Identifying the Retracted Status of an Article

Abstract: Author Contributions: Ms Suelzer had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Cited by 25 publications

References 4 publications

Reducing Health Misinformation in Science: A Call to Arms

Reducing Health Misinformation in Science: A Call to Arms

The impact of retracted randomised controlled trials on systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines: a meta-epidemiological study

Recommendations from the Reducing the Inadvertent Spread of Retracted Science: Shaping a Research and Implementation Agenda Project

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About