Inconsistent and incomplete retraction of published research: A cross-sectional study on Covid-19 retractions and recommendations to mitigate risks for research, policy and practice

Abstract

Background Retraction of published research can reduce the dissemination of incorrect or misleading information, but concerns have been raised about the clarity and rigor of the retraction process. Failure to clearly and consistently retract research has several risks, for example discredited or erroneous research may inform health research studies (e.g. clinical trials), policies and practices, potentially rendering these unreliable. Objective To investigate consistency and clarity of research retraction, based on a case study of retracted Covid-19 research. Study design A cross-sectional study of retracted Covid-19 articles reporting empirical research findings, based on searches of Medline, Embase and Scopus on 10th July and 19th December 2020. Key results We included 46 retracted Covid-19 articles. The number eligible for inclusion nearly doubled, from 26 to 46, in five months. Most articles (67%) were retracted from scientific journals and the remainder from preprint servers. Key findings: (1) reasons for retraction were not reported in 33% (15/46) of cases; (2) time from publication to retraction could not be determined in 43% (20/46) of cases; (3) More than half (59%) of retracted Covid-19 articles (27/46) remained available as original unmarked electronic documents after retraction (33% as full text and 26% as an abstract only). Sources of articles post-retraction were preprint servers, ResearchGate and, less commonly, websites including PubMed Central and the World Health Organization. A retracted journal article which controversially claimed a link between 5G technology and Covid-19 remains available in its original full text from at least 60 different websites. Conclusions The retraction process is inconsistent and often ambiguous, with more than half of retracted Covid-19 research articles remaining available, unmarked, from a wide range of online sources. There is an urgent need to improve guidance on the retraction process and to extend this to cover preprint servers. We provide structured recommendations to address these concerns and to reduce the risks that arise when retracted research is inappropriately cited.

A Synthesis of the Formats for Correcting Erroneous and Fraudulent Academic Literature, and Associated Challenges

“…12 A detailed study of these notices is necessary but evidently, as for retraction notices, there is a need for greater details and accountability (Teixeira da Silva and Vuong 2022 ). Even with regard to retracted COVID-19 studies, “[t]he retraction process is inconsistent and often ambiguous, with more than half of retracted Covid-19 research articles remaining available, unmarked, from a wide range of online sources” (p. 15) (Frampton et al 2021 ).…”

COVID‐19 and heart failure: the dark side of the moon

“…Since the advent of the COVID‐19 pandemic, the scientific community has rapidly and impressively diverted its attention to the generation of new evidence about the novel coronavirus; including the study of both its impact and management. However, this has been accompanied by opportunism and some of the published data have been partial, rushed and occasionally inaccurate 1 . Despite the high volume of research reports published, the quality, novelty, and impact of some of the work has been modest 2 …”

“…However, this has been accompanied by opportunism and some of the published data have been partial, rushed and occasionally inaccurate. 1 Despite the high volume of research reports published, the quality, novelty, and impact of some of the work has been modest. 2 …”

11th Anniversary of JCHIMP

“… 1 As we wrote about in last years annual review, the sheer volume of publications has overwhelmed the peer review system. 2 , 3 We are grateful to our peer reviewers for maintaining their rigorous standards and are happy to report that we have never had to retract an article.…”