Availability of retracted Covid-19 papers on Internet research-sharing platforms
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56294/mw202454Keywords:
Retractions, Research-Sharing, Science CommunicationAbstract
Introduction: this paper investigated the availability of retracted/with Expression of Concern Covid-19 papers on research-sharing platforms.
Methods: from the “Retraction Watch” (RW) list of Covid-19 retracted/with Expressions of Concern (EoC) papers, all articles pertaining to Covid-19 treatment were selected. After their identification, paper titles and authors were searched on the platforms: Research Gate and Academia (Academia.com). In case a retracted or EoC paper was identified as available, the presence of a warning note was ascertained (either as an attached note or as a direct warning on the paper). The citations that these papers received were then identified on the Google Scholar platform, and classified as prior to retraction date/posterior to retraction date.
Results: at first, a total of 44 papers were selected from the RW list. Out of these, 18 full papers could be obtained in the analyzed platforms (15 retractions, 3 EoCs). Fourteen of the identified papers concerned dubious, ineffective or “alternative” treatments. The most common countries of origin were India and Egypt. The median number of Google Scholar post-retraction citations was 29,5 and the mean 42,9 (range: 0 - 128).
Conclusion: research-sharing platforms should implement mechanisms to prevent non reliable research to be made available in them
References
1. Barbour V, Kleinert S, Wager E, Yentis S. Guidelines for retracting articles. Committee on Publication Ethics; 2009. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4.
2. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2012;109:17028–33. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212247109.
3. Meyerowitz-Katz G, Sekhar P, Besançon L, Turner T, McDonald S. The Citation of Retracted COVID-19 Papers is Common and Rarely Critical. Epidemiology; 2022. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.06.30.22277084.
4. Santos-d’Amorim K, Ribeiro de Melo R, Nonato Macedo dos Santos R. Retractions and post-retraction citations in the COVID-19 infodemic: is Academia spreading misinformation? Liinc Rev 2021;17:e5593. https://doi.org/10.18617/liinc.v17i1.5593.
5. Bolland MJ, Grey A, Avenell A. Citation of retracted publications: A challenging problem. Accountability in Research 2022;29:18–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2021.1886933.
6. Piller C. Disgraced COVID-19 studies are still routinely cited. Science 2021;371:331–2. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.371.6527.331.
7. Schneider J, Ye D, Hill AM, Whitehorn AS. Continued post-retraction citation of a fraudulent clinical trial report, 11 years after it was retracted for falsifying data. Scientometrics 2020;125:2877–913. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03631-1.
8. Retraction Watch. Top 10 most highly cited retracted papers. Retraction Watch 2015. https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-leaderboard/top-10-most-highly-cited-retracted-papers/ (accessed August 28, 2023).
9. Lawson DO, Wang MK, Kim K, Eikelboom R, Rodrigues M, Trapsa D, et al. Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic and recent developments on the communication of clinical trials, publishing practices, and research integrity: in conversation with Dr. David Moher. Trials 2022;23:671. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06624-y.
10. Chirico F, Teixeira da Silva JA, Magnavita N. “Questionable” peer review in the publishing pandemic during the time of COVID-19: implications for policy makers and stakeholders. Croat Med J 2020;61:300–1. https://doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2020.61.300.
11. Jung RG, Di Santo P, Clifford C, Prosperi-Porta G, Skanes S, Hung A, et al. Methodological quality of COVID-19 clinical research. Nat Commun 2021;12:943. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-21220-5.
12. Maisonneuve H. COVID-19 as a source of poor publications. Joint Bone Spine 2022;89:105427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbspin.2022.105427.
13. Teixeira da Silva JA. Silently withdrawn or retracted preprints related to Covid-19 are a scholarly threat and a potential public health risk: theoretical arguments and suggested recommendations. OIR 2021;45:751–7. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-08-2020-0371.
14. Almeida RMVR. How did the scientific publication system respond to the Covid-19 pandemic? Iberoamerican Journal of Science Measurement and Communication 2022;2. https://doi.org/10.47909/ijsmc.160.
15. Manca S. ResearchGate and Academia.edu as networked socio-technical systems for scholarly communication: a literature review. Research in Learning Technology 2018;26. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v26.2008.
16. ResearchGate. About Us | ResearchGate. ResearchGate 2023. https://www.researchgate.net/about (accessed September 18, 2023).
17. Kintisch E. Is ResearchGate Facebook for science? 2021. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.caredit.a1400214.
18. Academia. Academia.edu | About. AcademiaEdu 2023. https://www.academia.edu/about
19. Retraction Watch. Retracted coronavirus (COVID-19) papers. Retraction Watch 2023. https://retractionwatch.com/retracted-coronavirus-covid-19-papers
20. Teixeira da Silva JA, Bornemann-Cimenti H. Why do some retracted papers continue to be cited? Scientometrics 2017;110:365–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2178-9.
21. Unger K, Couzin J. Even Retracted Papers Endure. Science 2006;312:40–1. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.312.5770.40.
22. Oransky I. Amulets may prevent COVID-19, says a paper in Elsevier journal. (They don’t.) – Retraction Watch 2020. https://retractionwatch.com/2020/10/29/amulets-may-prevent-covid-19-says-a-paper-in-elsevier-journal-they-dont/
23. Oransky I. Ivermectin meta-analysis to be retracted, revised, say authors. Retraction Watch 2021. https://retractionwatch.com/2021/08/10/ivermectin-meta-analysis-to-be-retracted-revised-say-authors/
24. Pfeifer MP. The Continued Use of Retracted, Invalid Scientific Literature. JAMA 1990;263:1420. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1990.03440100140020.
25. Wang Z, Shi Q, Zhou Q, Zhao S, Hou R, Lu S, et al. Retracted systematic reviews continued to be frequently cited: a citation analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2022;149:137–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.05.013.
26. Stillman D. Zotero Blog » Blog Archive » Retracted item notifications with Retraction Watch integration 2019. https://www.zotero.org/blog/retracted-item-notifications.
FINANCING
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Renan MVR Almeida, Aldo José Fontes-Pereira (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.
