Search

POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW

Introduction: Retraction is a mechanism to prevent the dissemination of erroneous, misleading, or biased data and information. Various factors can cause retraction. In this article, we focused on Kazakhstan data and aimed to present an analysis of retracted publications from Kazakhstan. Methods: Data for this descriptive cross-sectional article were obtained from the 'Retraction Watch’ database without time restriction. Among the country selections, 'Kazakhstan,' 'Tajikistan,' 'Uzbekistan,' 'Kyrgyzstan,' and 'Turkmenistan' were chosen, and the number of retracted articles was recorded. For detailed analysis, Kazakhstan data were focused on and further analyses were performed on Kazakhstan data. Article title, authors, time interval (in days) from publication to retraction, date of retraction, source of publication, subject area of publication, publication type, and retraction reason were recorded in an Excel file. Results: The number of retracted publications was detected as 64 from Kazakhstan, 49 from Tajikistan, 17 from Uzbekistan, 12 from Kyrgyzstan, and 1 from Turkmenistan. Kazakhstan data were as follows: The median time interval between publication date and retraction date was 475 (46 - 2074) days. Retraction reasons were listed as: Plagiarism (n = 22), peer review issues (n = 21), duplication (n = 11), author disagreements and conflict (n = 5), error (n = 5), fraud (n = 2), ethical issues ( n = 1), publication issues (n = 1), and unknown (n = 1). The three areas with the most retracted articles were engineering (n = 22), education (n = 21), and technology (n = 12). Conclusion: Kazakhstan was first among the five Central Asian countries in terms of the number of retracted publications. Plagiarism, peer review issues, and duplication were at the forefront of the retraction reasons. There is a need for approaches to increase the knowledge of researchers in Kazakhstan about the retraction reasons and ethical research conditions.

Objective. To describe the editorial processing time of published COVID-19 research articles and compare this with a similar topic, human influenza, and analyze the number of publications, withdrawals, and retractions. Methods. A descriptive-analytical study using PubMed on research articles with the MeSH terms human influenza and COVID-19. Time to acceptance (from submission to acceptance) and time to publication (from acceptance to publication) were compared. Retractions and withdrawals were reviewed both qualitatively and quantitatively. Results. There were 31 319 research articles on COVID-19 and 4 287 on human influenza published during 2020. The median time to acceptance for COVID-19 was lower than that for human influenza (8 vs. 92 days). The median time to publication for COVID-19 articles was shorter than those on human influenza (12 vs. 16 days); 47.0% of COVID-19 research articles were accepted within the first week of submission, and 19.5% within one day. There were 82 retractions and withdrawals for COVID-19 articles, 1 for human influenza, and 5 for articles that contain both terms; these were mainly related to ethical misconduct, and 27 (31.0%) were published by the same group of authors in one highest-quartile journal. Conclusions. The conundrum between fast publishing and adequate standards is shown in this analysis of COVID-19 research articles. The speed of acceptance for COVID-19 manuscripts was 11.5 times faster than for human influenza. The high number of acceptances within a day or week of submission and the number of retractions and withdrawals of COVID-19 papers might be a warning sign about the possible lack of a quality control process in scientific publishing and the peer review process.

N/a.

Objective: Systematic reviews and other evidence syntheses, the pinnacle of the evidence pyramid, embody comprehensiveness and rigor; however, retracted data are being incorporated into these publications. This study examines the use of retracted publications in the field of pharmacy, describes characteristics of retracted publications cited by systematic reviews, and discusses factors associated with citation likelihood. Methods: Using data from Retraction Watch, we identified retracted publications in the pharmacy field. We identified all articles citing these retracted publications in Web of Science and Scopus and limited results to systematic reviews. We classified the retraction reason, determined whether the citation occurred before or after retraction, and analyzed factors associated with the likelihood of systematic reviews citing a retracted publication. Results: Of 1,396 retracted publications, 283 were cited 1,096 times in systematic reviews. Most (65.0%) (712/1096) citations occurred before retraction. Citations were most often to items retracted due to data falsification or manipulation (39.2%), followed by items retracted due to ethical misconduct including plagiarism (30.4%), or concerns about or errors in data or methods (26.2%). Compared to those not cited in systematic reviews, cited items were significantly more likely to be retracted due to data falsification and manipulation, were published in high impact factor journals, and had longer delays between publication and retraction. Conclusions: Further analysis of systematic reviews citing retracted publications is needed to determine the impact of flawed data. Librarians understand the nuances involved and can advocate for greater transparency around the retraction process and increase awareness of challenges posed by retractions.

Objective: Publications are retracted for many reasons, but the continued use and citation of retracted publications presents a problem for future research. This study investigated retractions in the dental literature to understand the characteristics of retracted publications, the reasons for their retractions, and the nature and context of their citations after retraction. Methods: In September 2018, the authors identified retracted dentistry publications using the Retraction Watch database. Citations to those publications were retrieved from Scopus and Web of Science. Characteristics of retracted publications and their citations were collected, including study design, reasons for retraction, and nature of citation (positive, negative, or neutral). We used chi-square tests to determine if there were notable differences between retracted publications that were cited following retraction and those that were not, and if there were relationships between the nature of the citation, the study design of the original publication, and its reason for retraction. Results: Of the 136 retracted publications, 84 were cited after retraction. When restricted to English language, 81 retracted publications received citations from 685 publications. Only 5.4% of the citations noted the retracted status of the original publication, while 25.3% of citations were neutral and 69.3% were positive. Animal studies were more likely to be uncited after retraction, while in vitro studies and randomized controlled trials were more likely to be cited. Retracted publications that were cited negatively were more likely to have been retracted due to scientific distortion than those that were cited positively or neutrally. Retracted publications that were cited negatively were also more likely to be observational studies than those cited positively or neutrally. Conclusion: Retracted publications in dentistry are continually cited positively following their retraction, regardless of their study designs or reasons for retraction. This indicates that the continued citation of retracted publications in this field cannot be isolated to certain research methods or misconduct but is, instead, a more widespread issue.