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.

<h4>Background</h4>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 exampl...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Geoff Frampton, Lois Woods, David Alexander Scott
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2021
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/d01a66b5c4e14c29af910600e6b3fa78
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:d01a66b5c4e14c29af910600e6b3fa78
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:d01a66b5c4e14c29af910600e6b3fa782021-12-02T20:04:39ZInconsistent and incomplete retraction of published research: A cross-sectional study on Covid-19 retractions and recommendations to mitigate risks for research, policy and practice.1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0258935https://doaj.org/article/d01a66b5c4e14c29af910600e6b3fa782021-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258935https://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Objective</h4>To investigate consistency and clarity of research retraction, based on a case study of retracted Covid-19 research.<h4>Study design</h4>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.<h4>Key results</h4>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.<h4>Conclusions</h4>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.Geoff FramptonLois WoodsDavid Alexander ScottPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 16, Iss 10, p e0258935 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Geoff Frampton Lois Woods David Alexander Scott 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.
description	<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Objective</h4>To investigate consistency and clarity of research retraction, based on a case study of retracted Covid-19 research.<h4>Study design</h4>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.<h4>Key results</h4>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.<h4>Conclusions</h4>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.
format	article
author	Geoff Frampton Lois Woods David Alexander Scott
author_facet	Geoff Frampton Lois Woods David Alexander Scott
author_sort	Geoff Frampton
title	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.
title_short	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.
title_full	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.
title_fullStr	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.
title_full_unstemmed	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.
title_sort	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.
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/d01a66b5c4e14c29af910600e6b3fa78
work_keys_str_mv	AT geoffframpton inconsistentandincompleteretractionofpublishedresearchacrosssectionalstudyoncovid19retractionsandrecommendationstomitigaterisksforresearchpolicyandpractice AT loiswoods inconsistentandincompleteretractionofpublishedresearchacrosssectionalstudyoncovid19retractionsandrecommendationstomitigaterisksforresearchpolicyandpractice AT davidalexanderscott inconsistentandincompleteretractionofpublishedresearchacrosssectionalstudyoncovid19retractionsandrecommendationstomitigaterisksforresearchpolicyandpractice
_version_	1718375569347837952

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.

Ejemplares similares