IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0258935.html

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

Author

Listed:
  • Geoff Frampton
  • Lois Woods
  • David Alexander Scott

Abstract

Background: 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. Objective: To investigate consistency and clarity of research retraction, based on a case study of retracted Covid-19 research. Study design: 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. Key results: 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. Conclusions: 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Geoff Frampton & Lois Woods & David Alexander Scott, 2021. "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," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(10), pages 1-22, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0258935
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258935
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0258935
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0258935&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0258935?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kenneth F Schulz & Douglas G Altman & David Moher & for the CONSORT Group, 2010. "CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomised Trials," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(3), pages 1-7, March.
    2. Jodi Schneider & Di Ye & Alison M. Hill & Ashley S. Whitehorn, 2020. "Continued post-retraction citation of a fraudulent clinical trial report, 11 years after it was retracted for falsifying data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2877-2913, December.
    3. Parisa Soltani & Romeo Patini, 2020. "Retracted COVID-19 articles: a side-effect of the hot race to publication," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 819-822, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. María Núñez-Núñez & Naomi Cano-Ibáñez & Javier Zamora & Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas & Khalid Saeed Khan, 2023. "Assessing the Integrity of Clinical Trials Included in Evidence Syntheses," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(12), pages 1-13, June.
    2. Ángel Enrique & Juana Bretón-López & Guadalupe Molinari & Rosa M. Baños & Cristina Botella, 2018. "Efficacy of an adaptation of the Best Possible Self intervention implemented through positive technology: a randomized control trial," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 13(3), pages 671-689, September.
    3. Gerben ter Riet & Paula Chesley & Alan G Gross & Lara Siebeling & Patrick Muggensturm & Nadine Heller & Martin Umbehr & Daniela Vollenweider & Tsung Yu & Elie A Akl & Lizzy Brewster & Olaf M Dekkers &, 2013. "All That Glitters Isn't Gold: A Survey on Acknowledgment of Limitations in Biomedical Studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-6, November.
    4. Spyridon N Papageorgiou & Georgios N Antonoglou & George K Sándor & Theodore Eliades, 2017. "Randomized clinical trials in orthodontics are rarely registered a priori and often published late or not at all," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-13, August.
    5. Eun-Hi Kong & Myoungsuk Kim & Seonho Kim, 2021. "Effects of a Web-Based Educational Program Regarding Physical Restraint Reduction in Long-Term Care Settings on Nursing Students: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(13), pages 1-10, June.
    6. Parisa Soltani & Kimia Baghaei & Kioumars Tavakoli Tafti & Gianrico Spagnuolo, 2021. "Science Mapping Analysis of COVID-19 Articles Published in Dental Journals," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-8, February.
    7. Stavros Petrou & Oliver Rivero-Arias & Helen Dakin & Louise Longworth & Mark Oppe & Robert Froud & Alastair Gray, 2015. "Preferred Reporting Items for Studies Mapping onto Preference-Based Outcome Measures: The MAPS Statement," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(6), pages 1-8, August.
    8. Alexander P. L. Martindale & Carrie D. Llewellyn & Richard O. Visser & Benjamin Ng & Victoria Ngai & Aditya U. Kale & Lavinia Ferrante Ruffano & Robert M. Golub & Gary S. Collins & David Moher & Melis, 2024. "Concordance of randomised controlled trials for artificial intelligence interventions with the CONSORT-AI reporting guidelines," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-11, December.
    9. Marion Schmidt, 2024. "Why do some retracted articles continue to get cited?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(12), pages 7535-7563, December.
    10. repec:plo:pone00:0217134 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Maria Giné-Garriga & Carme Martin-Borràs & Anna Puig-Ribera & Carlos Martín-Cantera & Mercè Solà & Antonio Cuesta-Vargas & on behalf of the PPAF Group, 2013. "The Effect of a Physical Activity Program on the Total Number of Primary Care Visits in Inactive Patients: A 15-Month Randomized Controlled Trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-8, June.
    12. Nahid Norouzi-Gheidari & Alejandro Hernandez & Philippe S. Archambault & Johanne Higgins & Lise Poissant & Dahlia Kairy, 2019. "Feasibility, Safety and Efficacy of a Virtual Reality Exergame System to Supplement Upper Extremity Rehabilitation Post-Stroke: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial and Proof of Principle," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(1), pages 1-11, December.
    13. Rahmat Dapari & Kalaivani Muniandy & Ahmad Zaid Fattah Azman & Suhaili Abu Bakar & Mohd Nasir Mohd Desa & Lim Chee Hwa & Sukhvinder Singh Sandhu & Nooreen Farzana Mustapha & Norazman Mohd Rosli & Mohd, 2024. "Effectiveness of the Integrated Dengue Education and Learning (iDEAL) module in improving the knowledge, attitude, practice, environmental cleanliness index, and dengue index among schoolchildren: A randomised controlled trial protocol," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(4), pages 1-14, April.
    14. Juliusz Huber & Katarzyna Kaczmarek & Katarzyna Leszczyńska & Przemysław Daroszewski, 2022. "Post-Stroke Treatment with Neuromuscular Functional Electrostimulation of Antagonistic Muscles and Kinesiotherapy Evaluated with Electromyography and Clinical Studies in a Two-Month Follow-Up," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(2), pages 1-17, January.
    15. Süreyya Kılıç & Sema Dereli Yılmaz, 2023. "Virtual Reality Headset Simulating a Nature Environment to Improve Health Outcomes in Pregnant Women: A Randomized-Controlled Trial," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 32(8), pages 1104-1114, November.
    16. Denise Howel & Suzanne Moffatt & Catherine Haighton & Andrew Bryant & Frauke Becker & Melanie Steer & Sarah Lawson & Terry Aspray & Eugene M G Milne & Luke Vale & Elaine McColl & Martin White, 2019. "Does domiciliary welfare rights advice improve health-related quality of life in independent-living, socio-economically disadvantaged people aged ≥60 years? Randomised controlled trial, economic and process evaluations in the North East of England," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-31, January.
    17. Reynolds, J.P. & Pilling, M. & Marteau, T.M., 2018. "Communicating quantitative evidence of policy effectiveness and support for the policy: Three experimental studies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 218(C), pages 1-12.
    18. Marlene De Fabritiis & Federica Trisolini & Gloria Bertuletti & Ionut Daniel Fagadau & Davide Ginelli & Katiuscia Pia Lalopa & Lisa Peverelli & Alessia Pirola & Gaia Sala & Marta Maisto & Fabio Madedd, 2022. "An Internet-Based Multi-Approach Intervention Targeting University Students Suffering from Psychological Problems: Design, Implementation, and Evaluation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(5), pages 1-15, February.
    19. Johan Simonsen Abildgaard & Henna Hasson & Ulrica von Thiele Schwarz & Lise Tevik Løvseth & Arja Ala-Laurinaho & Karina Nielsen, 2020. "Forms of participation: The development and application of a conceptual model of participation in work environment interventions," Economic and Industrial Democracy, Department of Economic History, Uppsala University, Sweden, vol. 41(3), pages 746-769, August.
    20. Andreas C Drichoutis & Rodolfo M Nayga, 2020. "Economic Rationality under Cognitive Load," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(632), pages 2382-2409.
    21. Natalia Stanulewicz & Emily Knox & Melanie Narayanasamy & Noureen Shivji & Kamlesh Khunti & Holly Blake, 2019. "Effectiveness of Lifestyle Health Promotion Interventions for Nurses: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(1), pages 1-36, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0258935. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.