Search

Objective To analyze the retraction status and reasons of non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) in medicine. Study Design and Setting MEDLINE, Embase, Retraction Watch Database and Google Scholar were systematically searched to find all retracted non-Cochrane SRs. Results Of 159 non-Cochrane SRs in medicine retracted between 2004 and 2020, more than 70% were led by authors from China and affiliated with hospitals. The largest proportion of retraction notices were issued by the publisher and editor(s) jointly. Fraudulent peer-review was the most common reason for retraction, followed by unreliable data meaning errors in study selection or data analysis. The median time between publication and retraction was 14 months, and SRs retracted due to research misconduct took longer to retract than honest error. Conclusion The total number of retracted SRs is increasing worldwide, in particular in China. The most common reasons for retraction are fraudulent peer-review and unreliable data, and in most cases the SR is retracted more than a year after publication. Better systems of ethical oversight and culture to improve the process of peer review and adherence to the COPE retraction guidance are needed, and authors should strengthen their skills in SR methodology.

Background The incidence of retractions has been increasing steadily, in direct proportion to the volume of scientific literature. Retraction of published articles depends on the visibility of journals and on postpublication scrutiny of published articles by peers. The possibility thus exists that not all compromised (“retractable”) articles are detected and retracted from the less-visible journals. The proportion of “retractable” articles and its converse, the proportion of published articles in each journal that are likely to be “true” (PTP), have not been estimated hitherto. Methods Three journal sets were created: pure neurosurgery journals (NS-P), the neurosurgery component of multidisciplinary journals (NS-MD), and high-impact clinical journals (HICJs). We described a new metric (the retraction gap [RGap]), defined as the proportion of retractable articles in journals that have not been retracted. We computed the expected number of retractable articles, RGap, and PTP for each journal, and compared these metrics across groups. Results Fifty-three NS-P journals, 10 NS-MD journals, and 63 HICJs were included in the analysis. The estimated number of retractable articles was 31 times the actual number of retractions in NS-P journals, 6 times higher in the NS-MD journals, and 26 times higher for the HICJs. The RGap was 96.7% for the NS-P group, 83.5% for the NS-MD group, and 96.2% for the HICJs. The PTP was 99.3% in the NS-P group, 99.2% in the NS-MD group, and 98.6% in the HICJs. Conclusions Neurosurgery as a discipline had a higher RGap but also a higher PTP than the other 2 groups.

Review of retracted articles has a positive impact on scientific research. The aim of our study was to examine the characteristics of retracted articles in the field of pancreatic diseases.The Retraction Watch database was queried for retractions in pancreatic diseases on 7 March 2021, and the filters set were as follows: (1) the Title typed in was "pancreatitis", "pancreas", or "pancreatic"; (2) the Nature of notice selected was "retraction".A total of 116 retracted articles were identified as pancreatic disease-related, with over two-thirds of them pertaining to pancreatic cancer. Research article was the most common article type among these retractions. Common reasons given for retraction included scientific fraud (37.1%), duplication (26.7%), and reliability (25%). China had the largest number of retractions (n=51), followed by the United States (n=47). Most articles were retracted in recent years, particularly after 2015.A large proportion of retracted articles pertaining to pancreatic diseases have been retracted in recent years. The majority of publications-over three quarters-were retracted for authors who committed some type of misconduct. Differences between countries in the manner of misconduct were stark.

Retractions have been on the rise in the life and clinical sciences in the last decade, likely due to both broader accessibility of published scientific research and increased vigilance on the part of publishers. In this same period, there has been a greater than ten-fold increase in the posting of preprints by researchers in these fields. While this development has significantly accelerated the rate of research dissemination and has benefited early-career researchers eager to show productivity, it has also introduced challenges with respect to provenance tracking, version linking, and, ultimately, back-propagation of events such as corrigenda, expressions of concern, and retractions that occur on the journal-published version. The aim of this study was to understand the extent of this problem among preprint servers that routinely link their preprints to the corollary versions published in journals. To present a snapshot of the current state of downstream retractions of articles preprinted in three large preprint servers (Research Square, bioRxiv, and medRxiv), the DOIs of the journal-published versions linked to preprints were matched to entries in the Retraction Watch database. A total of 30 retractions were identified, representing only 0.01% of all content posted on these servers. Of these, 11 retractions were clearly noted by the preprint servers; however, the existence of a preprint was only acknowledged by the retracting journal in one case. The time from publication to retraction averaged 278 days, notably lower than the average for articles overall (839 days). In 70% of cases, retractions downstream of preprints were due–at least in part–to ethical or procedural misconduct. In 63% of cases, the nature of the retraction suggested that the conclusions were no longer reliable. Over time, the lack of propagation of critical information across the publication life cycle will pose a threat to the scholarly record and to scientific integrity. It is incumbent on preprint servers, publishers, and the systems that connect them to address these issues before their scale becomes untenable.

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.

This journal recently drew attention to an extensive body of highly questionable research published by Hans J. Eysenck in collaboration with Ronald Grossarth-Maticek. The subsequent enquiry by King’s College London concluded that 26 publications were unsafe and warranted retraction. However, the enquiry reviewed only a subset of the 61 questionable publications initially submitted to them, only those Eysenck co-authored with Grossarth-Maticek. The enquiry excluded publications where Eysenck was the sole author. The King’s College London enquiry must be properly completed. They have a pressing responsibility to re-convene and broaden their review to include all Eysenck’s publications based on the same body of research – including an additional 27 publications recently uncovered. The unsatisfactory nature of the KCL review process makes the case for a National Research Integrity Ombudsperson even stronger.

With greater use of social media platforms for promotions of research articles, retracted articles tend to receive approximately the same attention. We systematically analyzed retracted articles from retractionwatch.com to look at the Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS) garnered over a period of time in order to highlight the role of social media and other platforms in advertising retracted articles and its effect on the spread of misinformation.Retractionwatch.com was searched for coronavirus disease 2019 related retracted papers on November 6th, 2021. Articles were excluded based on lack of digital object identifier (DOI), if they were preprint articles, absent AAS, and incomplete AAS of pre retraction, post retraction, or both scores.A total of 196 articles were found on the Retraction Watch website of which 189 were retracted papers and 7 were expression of concern (EOC). We then identified 175 articles after excluding those that did not have a DOI and 30 preprint articles were also excluded giving 145 articles. Further exclusion of articles with absent AAS and incomplete AAS resulted in a total of 22 articles.Retracted articles receive significant online attention. Twitter and Mendeley were the most popular medium for publicizing retracted articles, therefore more focus should be given by journals and their Twitter accounts to discredit all their retracted articles. Preprints should be reconsidered as a whole by journals due to the huge risk they carry in disseminating false information.

Inadvertent or unacknowledged citations to retracted literature are a persistent problem in scholarly publishing.1,2 Inconsistencies in how retraction information is displayed on publisher websites and bibliographic databases hinder determining whether a paper has been retracted, thus contributing to the cause of this problem. This cross-sectional study examines publisher websites and bibliographic databases to check their accordance with industry standards for documenting retracted publications, highlighting challenges readers face in identifying the retracted status of a publication.

Concerns about vaccine safety can lead to decreased acceptance of vaccines and resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases. We summarize the key evidence on some of the main current vaccine safety controversies in the United States, including (1) measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and autism; (2) thimerosal, a mercury-based vaccine preservative and the risk of neurodevelopmental disorders; (3) vaccine-induced Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS); (4) vaccine-induced autoimmune diseases; (5) safety of human papillomavirus vaccine; (6) aluminum adjuvant-induced autoimmune diseases and other disorders; and (7) too many vaccines given early in life predisposing children to health and developmental problems. A possible small increased risk of GBS following influenza vaccination has been identified, but the magnitude of the increase is less than the risk of GBS following influenza infection. Otherwise, the biological and epidemiologic evidence does not support any of the reviewed vaccine safety concerns.

The impact of COVID-19 on medical education has been mainly viewed from the perspective of the imposed transition from face-to- face to online delivery of information and the inforced stopping of practical teaching in hospitals.1-5 However, unfortunately, the deleterious effects of COVID-19 on how research findings are obtained, communicated and valued needs also careful consideration. Whilst teaching students that it is a genuinely exciting and unique time to be in medicine, as teachers of a subject entitled ‘Introduction to Research’ to second-year medical students, we feel particularly worried about what the handling of the pandemia is transmitting our future physicians. Now, more than ever before, scholars need to reaffirm the importance on how research findings are obtained and communicated.

The current COVID-19 pandemic situation has stimulated an unplanned clinical research paradigm which is evident from the surge of clinical trial registrations and the increasing number of COVID-related publications. We aimed to explore the standards for research conduction, publications and retraction of articles related to COVID-19 pharmacotherapy research during the pandemic. We analysed data from the contemporary literatures on studies reporting pharmacological agents for COVID-19 using MEDLINE, PubMed, WHO database and Google Scholar between January 01, 2020 and March 20, 2021. The initial search revealed a total of 61,801 articles. Based on the inclusion criteria, a total of 124 studies related to various pharmacological agents were included in the final analysis. Most of the studies were reported from the United States ( n = 30, 24%). Of the 124 studies, 50 (40%) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Immunomodulatory drugs-related ( n = 17, 34%) and COVID-19 vaccine-related studies ( n = 14, 28%) were the main topics in the relevant RCTs. The median days for dissemination of findings in journals were 114 days (IQR 61–189). A comparative analysis revealed that RCTs were disseminated earlier (median 79 days; IQR 52–131) when compared to observational studies (median = 144 days; IQR 69–206) ( p = 0.003). Six papers were retracted from high impact journals; in which the average period till publication was 33 days. Retraction of papers occurred within 10–48 days. Expedited reviews, research approval and early publications of COVID-19 related pharmaceutical studies could have an impact on the quality of publications. However, the huge number of publications in short time creates confusion for readers during the early phases of the pandemic. Retraction of papers is alarming but ensures research integrity and correctness of scientific information. These abbreviated processes could affect patient care and public awareness. It is imperative to follow rapid but rigours ethical standards for research approval and peer-review process for publications during health pandemics.

This cross-sectional study describes trends and characteristics of retracted articles in the biomedical literature from 1971 to August 2020.

OBJECTIVE: Recently, two influential articles that reported the association of (hydroxy)chloroquine or angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mortality were retracted due to significant methodological issues. Therefore, we aimed to analyze the same clinical issues through an improved research method and to find out the differences from the retracted papers. We systematically reviewed pre-existing literature, and compared the results with those of the retracted papers to gain a novel insight.\ud \ud MATERIALS AND METHODS: We extracted common risk factors identified in two retracted papers, and conducted relevant publication search until June 26, 2020 in PubMed. Then, we analyzed the risk factors for COVID-19 mortality and compared them to those of the retracted papers.\ud \ud RESULTS: Our systematic review demonstrated that most demographic and clinical risk factors for COVID-19 mortality were similar to those of the retracted papers. However, while the retracted paper indicated that both (hydroxy)chloroquine monotherapy and combination therapy with macrolide were associated with higher risk of mortality, our study showed that only combination therapy of hydroxychloroquine and macrolide was associated with higher risk of mortality (odds ratio 2.33; 95% confidence interval 1.63-3.34). In addition, our study demonstrated that use of ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) was associated with reduced risk of mortality (0.77; 0.65-0.91).\ud \ud CONCLUSIONS: When analyzing the same clinical issues with the two retracted papers through a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and relevant cohort studies, we found out that (hydroxy)chloroquine monotherapy was not associated with higher risk of mortality, and that the use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs was associated with reduced risk of mortality in COVID-19 patients.

Background As the volume of scientific publications increases, the rate of retraction of published papers is also likely to increase. In the present study, we report the characteristics of retracted papers from clinical neurosurgery and allied clinical and basic science specialties. Methods Retracted papers were identified using two separate search strategies on PubMed. Attributes of the retracted papers were collected from PubMed and the Retraction Watch database. The reasons for retraction were analyzed. The factors that correlated with time to retraction were identified. Detailed citation analysis for the retracted papers was performed. The retraction rates for neurosurgery journals were computed. Results A total of 191 retractions were identified; 55% pertained to clinical neurosurgery. The most common reasons for retraction were plagiarism, duplication, and compromised peer review. The countries associated with the highest number of retractions were China, USA, and Japan. The full text of the retraction notice was not available for 11% of the papers. A median of 50% of all citations received by the papers occurred after retraction. The factors that correlated with a longer time to retraction included basic science category, the number of collaborating departments, and the H-index of the journal. The overall rate of retractions in neurosurgery journals was 0.037%. Conclusions The retraction notice needs to be freely available on all search engines. Plagiarism checks and reference checks prior to publication of papers (to ensure no retracted papers have been cited) must be mandatory. Mandatory data deposition would help overcome issues with data and results. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00701-020-04615-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Worldwide there are currently over 1200 research studies being performed on the topic of COVID-19. Many of these involve children and adults over age 65 years. There are also numerous studies testing investigational vaccines on healthy volunteers. No research team is exempt from the pressures and speed at which COVID-19 research is occurring. And this can increase the risk of honest error as well as misconduct. To date, 33 papers have been identified as unsuitable for public use and either retracted, withdrawn, or noted with concern. Asia is the source of most of these manuscripts (n=19; 57.6%) with China the largest Asian subgroup (n=11; 57.9%). This paper explores these findings and offers guidance for responsible research practice during pandemics.

Academics are expected to publish their research work. Hence, during the past few years, the scientific community has witnessed an ever-increasing growth and output in scientific papers. However, a large number of authors have violated ethical norms of research leading to retractions of their research works as well. The article focuses on the scientific fraud emanating from China and India in Health Sciences for a period of three years i.e. 2015 to 2018. The present data were extracted from http://retractiondatabase.org/using a search filter term "Research Articles OR Articles in Press" on the subject category of Health Sciences (HSC). A total of 318 retracted papers were retrieved and the result of the study indicated that majority (268 items) of the retracted papers in Health Science originated from China, whereas just 50 retracted papers originated from India as on 21-02-2019. While analyzing the data, 26 redundant articles from China have been removed that received retraction notices. Further, the results of the study suggest that there are several factors associated with retraction of scientific papers, which include unreliable results, duplication of results, plagiarism, forged authorship, error in the text, error in data and so on.

Objectives The present systematic review aimed to perform an in‐depth analysis of the different features of retracted publications in the dental field. Material and methods This review has been recorded in the PROSPERO database (CRD42017075634). Two independent reviewers performed an electronic search (Pubmed, Retraction Watch) for retracted articles in dental literature up to December 31, 2018. Results 180 retracted papers were identified, the first published in 2001. Retractions increased by 47% in the last four‐year period (2014–2018), when compared with 2009–2013 (94 and 64 retracted publications, respectively). Author misconduct was the most common reason for retraction (65.0%), followed by honest scientific errors (12.2%) and publisher‐related issues (10.6%). The majority of retracted research was conducted in Asia (55.6%), with 49 papers written in India (27.2%). 552 researchers (89%) are listed as authors in only one retracted article, while 10 researchers (1.6%) are present in five or more retracted publications. Retracted articles were cited 530 times after retraction: the great majority of these citations (89.6%) did not consider the existence of the retraction notice and treated data from retracted articles as reliable. Conclusions Retractions in dental literature have constantly increased in recent years, with the majority of them due to misconduct and fraud. The publication of unreliable research has many negative consequences. Studies derived from such material are designed on potentially incorrect bases, waste funds and resources, and most importantly, increase risk of incorrect treatment for patients. Citation of retracted papers represents a major issue for the scientific community.

Retractions of scientific articles represent attempts to correct the literature. Our goal was to examine retracted surgical papers.NCBI PubMed database was queried using the search terms "surgery," "surg," or "surgical" and "retracted" or "retraction." Article details were recorded.There were 184 retracted surgical articles identified from 1991 through 2015. Average retraction time was 3.6 years. General (26%), Cardiac (22%), and Orthopedic (10%) surgery were most common. Reasons for retraction were duplication (35.3%), Institutional Review Board violations (18.5%), falsified data (14.7%), data errors (9.8%), author dispute (8.2%), plagiarism (7.6%), copyright violations (2.2%), financial disclosure violations (0.5%), and consent (0.5%). No reason for retraction was given in 8.7% of cases. Median IF was higher for administrative than content-related retraction reasons (3.0 vs. 2.0, P 0.01). A paywall, requiring a subscription to read, restricted access to 23.4% of retraction notices.Article retractions occur across all fields of surgery for various reasons, both administrative and content-related. The majority of surgical retraction notices have a reason for retraction listed and do not require payment to read.

Objectives To assess the impact of retraction on the citation of randomized controlled trials. Methods We used an interrupted time-series with matched controls. PubMed, CINHAL, Google and the Retraction Watch Database were searched. We identified retracted publications reporting the results of randomized controlled trials involving human participants with two years of available data before and after retraction. We obtained monthly citation counts across all articles for the 24 months before and after retraction, from Web of Science. We used a Poisson segmented regression to detect changes in the level and trend of citation following retraction. We also undertook a matched control analysis of unretracted randomized controlled trials and a sensitivity analysis to account for cases of large-scale, well-advertised fraud. Results We identified 387 retracted randomized controlled trial reports, of which 218 (56.3%) were included in the interrupted time-series analysis. A reduction of 22.9% (95% CI 4.0% to 38.2%, p = 0.02) was observed in the number of citations in the month after retraction, and a further reduction of 1.9% (95% CI 0.4% to 3.5%, p = 0.02) per month in the following 24 months, relative to the expected trend. There was no evidence of a statistically significant reduction among the matched controls. Authors with a large number of retractions saw a 48.2% reduction at the time of retraction (95% CI 17.7% to 67.3%, p = 0.01). Other cases had a more gradual reduction with no change at the time of retraction and a 1.8% reduction per month in the following 24 months (95% CI 0.2% to 3.4%, p = 0.03). Conclusions Retractions of randomized controlled trial reports can be effective in reducing citations. Other factors, such as the scale of the retractions and media attention, may play a role in the effectiveness of the reduction.

Cases of research misconduct in the ecological and environmental sciences appear to be relatively rare. A controversial paper published in Science in 2016 documenting the effects of microplastics on the feeding and innate behaviours of fish larvae has recently been retracted, with the authors found guilty of scientific misconduct. In addition to the expected fallout, such as individual and institutional reputational damage from a research misconduct finding, this case has two possibly wider-ranging ramifications. Firstly, there may be a presumptive notion that a strong negative effect could be more successfully published than a neutral effect. This presumption would belie the true stringency and rigor of research adopted by workers in the field. Secondly, the case may have a negative impact on the public's perception of and trust in legitimate and good science that addresses critical environmental issues, such as anthropogenic climate change.

We analysed how long it has taken for papers authored by Scott Reuben, Joachim Boldt and Yoshitaka Fujii to be retracted: investigations into these three anaesthetists have shown much of their research to be unethical or fraudulent. To date, 94% of their combined papers requiring retraction have been retracted; however, only 85% of the retraction notices were compliant with guidelines produced by the Committee on Publication Ethics. We contacted the Editors-in-Chief and/or publishers of all the journals containing articles that had been identified as requiring retraction but had not yet been retracted. In response to our enquiries, 16 articles have since been retracted; we have documented the journals' responses regarding the remaining papers and await further retractions in the future. There is room for improvement in the way that unethical or fraudulent papers are handled by journals and publishers, beyond the identification of the authors' misconduct.

Background Retraction of previously published scientific articles is an important mechanism to preserve the integrity of scientific work. This study analyzed retractions of previously published articles from surgery journals. Methods We searched for retracted articles in the 100 surgery journals with the highest SJR2 indicator grades. Results We found 130 retracted articles in 49 journals (49%). Five or more retracted articles were published in 8 journals (8%). The mean time between publication and retraction was 26 months (range 1 to 158 months). The United States, China, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom accounted for more than 3 out of 4 of the retracted articles. The greatest number of retractions came from manuscripts about orthopedics and traumatology, general surgery, anesthesiology, cardiothoracic surgery, and plastic surgery. Nonsurgeons were responsible for 16% of retractions in these surgery journals. The main reasons for retraction were duplicate publication (42%), plagiarism (16%), absence of proven integrity of the study (14%), incorrect data (13%), data published without authorization (12%), violation of research ethics (11%), documented fraud (11%), request of an author(s) (5%), and unknown (3%). In 25% of the retracted articles, other publications by the same authors also had been retracted. Conclusion Retraction of published articles does not occur frequently in surgery journals. Some form of scientific misconduct was present in the majority of retractions, especially duplication of publication and plagiarism. Retractions of previously published articles were most frequent from countries with the greatest number of publications; some authors showed recidivism.

The number of articles published in open access journals (OAJs) has increased dramatically in recent years. Simultaneously, the quality of publications in these journals has been called into question. Few studies have explored the retraction rate from OAJs. The purpose of the current study was to determine the reasons for retractions of articles from OAJs in biomedical research. The Medline database was searched through PubMed to identify retracted publications in OAJs. The journals were identified by the Directory of Open Access Journals. Data were extracted from each retracted article, including the time from publication to retraction, causes, journal impact factor, and country of origin. Trends in the characteristics related to retraction were determined. Data from 621 retracted studies were included in the analysis. The number and rate of retractions have increased since 2010. The most common reasons for retraction are errors (148), plagiarism (142), duplicate publication (101), fraud/suspected fraud (98) and invalid peer review (93). The number of retracted articles from OAJs has been steadily increasing. Misconduct was the primary reason for retraction. The majority of retracted articles were from journals with low impact factors and authored by researchers from China, India, Iran, and the USA.

The Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services (SBU) has recently published what they purported to be a systematic review of the literature on ‘isolated traumatic shaking’ in infants, concluding that ‘there is limited evidence that the so-called triad (encephalopathy, subdural haemorrhage, retinal haemorrhage) and therefore its components can be associated with traumatic shaking’. This flawed report, from a national body, demands a robust response. The conclusions of the original report have the potential to undermine medico-legal practice. We have conducted a critique of the methodology used in the SBU review and have found it to be flawed, to the extent that children’s lives may be put at risk. Thus, we call on this review to be withdrawn or to be subjected to international scrutiny.

Anaesthetist John Carlisle has spotted problems in hundreds of research papers — and spurred a leading medical journal to change its practice. Anaesthetist John Carlisle has spotted problems in hundreds of research papers — and spurred a leading medical journal to change its practice.

This quality improvement study examines the continued citations of a widely publicized retracted article on COVID-19.

Discovering an error that leads to retraction is a harrowing experience, especially for early-career researchers. Joana Grave shares the story of the retraction of her first published paper and how community support helped her through this challenge.

Randomised, controlled trials have been retracted after publication because of data fabrication and inadequate ethical approval. Fabricated data have included baseline variables, for instance, age, height or weight. Statistical tests can determine the probability of the distribution of means, given their standard deviation and the number of participants in each group. Randomised, controlled trials have been retracted after the data distributions have been calculated as improbable. Most retracted trials have been written by anaesthetists and published by specialist anaesthetic journals. I wanted to explore whether the distribution of baseline data in trials was consistent with the expected distribution. I wanted to determine whether trials retracted after publication had distributions different to trials that have not been retracted. I wanted to determine whether data distributions in trials published in specialist anaesthetic journals have been different to distributions in non-specialist medical journals. I analysed the distribution of 72,261 means of 29,789 variables in 5087 randomised, controlled trials published in eight journals between January 2000 and December 2015: Anaesthesia (399); Anesthesia and Analgesia (1288); Anesthesiology (541); British Journal of Anaesthesia (618); Canadian Journal of Anesthesia (384); European Journal of Anaesthesiology (404); Journal of the American Medical Association (518) and New England Journal of Medicine (935). I chose these journals as I had electronic access to the full text. Trial p values were distorted by an excess of baseline means that were similar and an excess that were dissimilar: 763/5015 (15.2%) trials that had not been retracted from publication had p values that were within 0.05 of 0 or 1 (expected 10%), that is, a 5.2% excess, p = 1.2 × 10-7 . The p values of 31/72 (43%) trials that had been retracted after publication were within 0.05 of 0 or 1, a rate different to that for unretracted trials, p = 1.03 × 10-10 . The difference between the distributions of these two subgroups was confirmed by comparison of their overall distributions, p = 5.3 × 10-15 . Each journal exhibited the same abnormal distribution of baseline means. There was no difference in distributions of baseline means for 1453 trials in non-anaesthetic journals and 3634 trials in anaesthetic journals, p = 0.30. The rate of retractions from JAMA and NEJM, 6/1453 or 1 in 242, was one-quarter the rate from the six anaesthetic journals, 66/3634 or 1 in 55, relative risk (99%CI) 0.23 (0.08-0.68), p = 0.00022. A probability threshold of 1 in 10,000 identified 8/72 (11%) retracted trials (7 by Fujii et al.) and 82/5015 (1.6%) unretracted trials. Some p values were so extreme that the baseline data could not be correct: for instance, for 43/5015 unretracted trials the probability was less than 1 in 1015 (equivalent to one drop of water in 20,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools). A probability threshold of 1 in 100 for two or more trials by the same author identified three authors of retracted trials (Boldt, Fujii and Reuben) and 21 first or corresponding authors of 65 unretracted trials. Fraud, unintentional error, correlation, stratified allocation and poor methodology might have contributed to the excess of randomised, controlled trials with similar or dissimilar means, a pattern that was common to all the surveyed journals. It is likely that this work will lead to the identification, correction and retraction of hitherto unretracted randomised, controlled trials.

Federal agencies can do more to ensure the integrity of the peer-reviewed literature including providing timely notice of misconduct findings or admissions regarding published articles, requiring the individual found guilty of misconduct to provide notice to affected journals, and to work with the journals and co-authors on making appropriate correction. The case of Andrew Cullinane underscores weakness in the current U.S. government administrative processes and the negative impact on journals.

The number of rheumatology journals, and papers related to this specialty, is expanding every day. Careful consideration for ethical aspects of such published work is mandatory for authors, readers, reviewers, editors, and all stakeholders. Recent instances of lack of appropriate research ethics committee overview, or participant consent for inclusion in the research study, or a case report, resulting in retractions, emphasize the need for greater awareness regarding these ethical aspects. Authors should strive to avoid redundancy, especially for review articles, both systematic and narrative. Clinical trial registration before commencing enrolment is mandatory as per contemporary norms. Transparent declaration of authorship contributions as well as appropriate attribution of authorship are recommended, since these may help avoid subsequent authorship conflicts. Authors, reviewers, and editors should disclose conflicts of interest, both financial and non-financial. Unbiased peer review is a critical part of editorial decision making; recent instances of peer review fraud have resulted in numerous retractions of scientific papers. Any reproduction of text, figures, or tables should be with due attribution to source, and after seeking permission of the copyright holder. Citations to published work should be relevant and diverse. Research assessment should rely on the assessment of quality of published work, rather than mere citation analyses. Authors should beware predatory, low-quality journals, and utilize social media channels to ethically promote their research with due consideration to privacy and copyright. Rheumatology societies should collaborate to develop guidelines for ethical research reporting, and educate young scientists regarding these principles.

Key Points Question What are the characteristics of citations of the retracted 1998 article by Wakefield et al that purported to show an association between the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autism? Findings In this cross-sectional bibliographic analysis of 1153 works citing the article by Wakefield et al, citation characteristics were mostly negative, but since the notice of retraction was issued in 2010, many of the citing works published afterward did not indicate that the article was retracted. Meaning The findings suggest that improvements are needed from publishers, bibliographic databases, and citation management software to ensure that retracted articles are accurately documented., This cross-sectional study analyzes the characteristics of citations from scholarly literature that reference the 1998 article by Wakefield et al and investigates whether authors are accurately citing retracted references., Importance The number of citations can be used to show the influence of an article or to measure the validity of a research study. The article by Wakefield et al that fraudulently reported an association between vaccination and autism continues to accumulate citations even after it was retracted. Objectives To examine the characteristics of citations from scholarly literature that reference the 1998 article by Wakefield et al and to investigate whether authors are accurately citing retracted references. Design, Setting, and Participants In this cross-sectional bibliographic analysis of the scholarly publications that cited a 1998 article by Wakefield et al, cited references were collected from a Web of Science Core Collection search performed on March 11, 2019. A total of 1211 articles were identified, with 58 citing works excluded because they were non–English-language publications or the citation to the study by Wakefield et al could not be located by reviewers. Citing works consisted of books, research articles, letters, editorials, news items, and other scholarly literature. Citations to the article by Wakefield et al were identified and analyzed by 2 reviewers in a blinded screening. Reviewers assigned a characteristic to each citation and indicated whether the retraction was documented. Main Outcomes and Measures The characteristics of citations to the article by Wakefield et al, were categorized as negative, affirmative, or contrastive; if not, persuasive; and if not, assumptive, perfunctory, methodologic, or conceptual. Whether the partial retraction or notice of retraction was included in the citing work was also documented. Results Among the 1153 citing works included in this analysis, the most common citation characteristics were negative (838 [72.7%]) followed by perfunctory (106 [9.2%]) and affirmative (94 [8.2%]). A total of 123 of 322 citing works (38.2%) published between 2005 and 2010 documented the partial retraction. After the notice of retraction was published in 2010, the percentage of citing works that documented the partial retraction and/or notice of retraction between 2011 and 2018 increased to 360 of 502 (71.7%). Conclusions and Relevance Since the article by Wakefield et al was initially published, authors have mostly negated the findings of the study. A significant number of authors did not document retractions of the article by Wakefield et al. The findings suggest that improvements are needed from publishers, bibliographic databases, and citation management software to ensure that retracted articles are accurately documented.

Objective To identify the characteristics of retracted publications in rehabilitation and sport sciences journals. Data Sources The Web of Science, PubMed, and Retraction Watch databases were searched from inception to August 2019. Study Selection Retracted publications published in rehabilitation or sport sciences journals, indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) and Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) were included. Data Extraction One author extracted the data. Two other authors checked the data. Data Synthesis A total of 37 and 52 retracted publications and their retraction notices were identified for rehabilitation and sport sciences, respectively. The majority of retracted publications (68% of all retracted papers in rehabilitation and 54% of all retracted papers in sport sciences) were published in the past decade. Retracted publications in rehabilitation and sport sciences were published in 21 and 22 different journals and originated from 18 and 21 different countries, respectively. The full-text of the retracted publications was available with a retraction watermark or note for 59% of cases in rehabilitation and 58% in sport sciences. The reasons for the retractions were more often attributed to misconduct (79% and 61%) than to honest error (21% and 39%) in rehabilitation and sport sciences, respectively. However, a reason was not stated for 15% of the publications. The median time interval between publication and retraction was 622 days in rehabilitation and 607 days in sport sciences publications. Conclusions The total number of retracted publications in rehabilitation and sport sciences journals was small. The retracted publications have been published in a variety of rehabilitation and sport sciences journals and came from different countries across the world. Several retracted publications and retraction notices failed to adhere to The Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines in the handling of full-text (retain with a watermark or note) or stating the underlying reasons for the retraction.

We present a taxonomy of errors in the scientific literature and an account of how the errors are distributed over the categories. We have developed the taxonomy by studying substantial errors in the scientific literature as described in retraction notices published in the journal Science over the past 35 years. We then examine how the sorts of errors that lead to retracted papers can be prevented and detected, considering the perspective of collaborating scientists, journal editors and referees, and readers of the published articles.

SummaryWe present an account of why we decided to retract a paper. We discovered a lack of adherence to conventional trials registration, execution, interpretation and reporting, and consequently, with the authors, needed to correct the scientific record. We set out our responses in general to strengthen research integrity.Declaration of interestK.S.B. is Editor-in-Chief of the British Journal of Psychiatry. W.L., K.R.K. and S.M.L. are members of the senior editorial committee and the research integrity committee for the journal. In the past three years, S.M.L. has received research support from Janssen and Lundbeck, and personal support from Janssen, Otsuka and Sunovion.