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a new metric (the retraction gap [RGap]), defined as the proportion of retractable articles in journals that have not been retracted.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.

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.

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.

BACKGROUND: Most retractions of obstetrics and gynecology manuscripts are because of scientific misconduct. It would be preferable to prevent randomized controlled trials with scientific misconduct from ever appearing in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, rather than to have to retract them later. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the policies of obstetrics and gynecology and top medical journals in their author guidelines and electronic submission systems regarding prospective randomized controlled trial registration, ethics committee approval, research protocols, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trial guidelines, and data sharing and to detect the most common quality criteria requested for randomized controlled trials in these journals. STUDY DESIGN: Author guidelines were identified via online Google searches from the websites of selected peer-reviewed medical journals. Journals in obstetrics and gynecology were selected from the list of journals with impact factors based on the Journal Citation Report released by Clarivate Analytics on June 29, 2020, focusing on those publishing original clinical research in obstetrics, in particular randomized controlled trials. In addition, 4 of the top impact factor peer-reviewed general medical journals publishing randomized controlled trials were included. The requirements for selected quality criteria for randomized controlled trials analyzed in the author guidelines for each journal were details of 5 general issues: prospective randomized controlled trial registration (4 subcategories), ethics committee approval (4 subcategories), research protocol (3 subcategories), Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines (3 subcategories), and data sharing (3 subcategories). To evaluate the requirements within the electronic submission system, a mock submission of a randomized controlled trial was also done for each journal, and the same criteria were assessed on the online software for submission. The primary outcome was the overall percentage for each of the quality criteria that were listed as required within the author guidelines or required in the submission system among all journals. Planned subgroup analyses were top general medicine vs obstetrics and gynecology journals and top 4 obstetrics and gynecology vs other obstetrics and gynecology journals. RESULTS: Most studied peer-reviewed journals listed in their author guidelines 7 specific criteria for submission of randomized controlled trials: prospective registration and registration number, statement of ethical approval with name of approving committee and statement of informed consent, statement of adherence to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines, and data sharing statement. For most journals, the submission software did not require these or any other criteria for submission. There were minimal differences in criteria listed for top medical journals vs other obstetrics and gynecology journals and among top vs other obstetrics and gynecology journals. CONCLUSION: Prospective registration and registration number, statement of ethical approval with name of approving committee and statement of informed consent, statement of adherence to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines, and data sharing statement are the randomized controlled trial quality criteria requested by leading medical and obstetrics and gynecology journals. These obstetrics and gynecology journals agree to make, as much as possible, these criteria uniform and mandatory in author guidelines and also through improved submission software.

Background: Papers continue to be cited by authors even after they have been retracted. Retraction notices provide readers with information about retracted papers and may help minimise post-retraction citation. To date, a review of the quality of retraction notices in nursing science has not been reported. Design: An audit of retraction notices associated with 29 retracted manuscripts published in nursing science journals. Methods: Retraction notices were reviewed again using the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines. Results: In total, 28 retraction notices were retrieved and reviewed (one retracted paper did not have a retraction notice). Details of the retracted manuscripts were included in all reviewed notices and, in all but two, author names were reported. Details of the time between a paper being published and retracted were not reported and generally there was a little information in notices about how the retraction decisions were made. All retraction notices were freely available. Seven notices stated who had made the decision to retract. Twenty-two (77%) notices stated the reason for retraction. Notices were brief and contained factual information. The webpages of three retracted articles did not clearly indicate that the paper had been retracted. Conclusion: More detailed and informative retraction notices will inform readers and may help reduce post- retraction citation. Refereed/Peer-reviewed

When biochemistry meets structural biology a more complete understanding of the mechanism of biological macromolecules is usually achieved. Several high-resolution structures of ion-coupled transporters have enriched the understanding of mechanisms of substrate recognition, translocation and coupling of substrate fluxes. However, two X-ray structures of EmrE, the smallest ion-coupled multi-drug transporter, raised questions over the veracity of the structural model and represented a cautionary tale about the difficulty of determining the 3D structures of membrane proteins and the dangers of ignoring biochemical results. The 3D structures of EmrE have since been retracted because of faulty software, but the suggestion that the protomers in the dimer are in an antiparallel topological orientation sparked controversy that is still ongoing.

With the realization that biomedical journals are indirectly guided by a well-organized committee of editors who comply with a rigid set of requirements (see last month’s editorial), I will continue with confirmation of our support for the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and its recent update of the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals (http:// www.icmje.org). This month, I will discuss the importance of privacy and confidentiality for research participants as well as authors and reviewers, protection of human subjects and animals in research, and the occasional need for corrections and retractions. Duplicate submissions and competing manuscripts based on the same database will be explored. And finally, rules affecting letters to the editor and supplemental issues will also be defined.

Scientists who have come face to face with scientific misconduct consider its consequences years later.

[Figure][1] One of the least attractive aspects of being an editor is dealing with the possibility of scientific misconduct or fraud. Aside from the fundamental unpleasantness of the matter, editors are poorly equipped to evaluate possible misconduct since we neither have access to the raw