Citations of microRNA Biomarker Articles That Were Retracted: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Retraction is a tool that journals can use to deter research misconduct and alert their audience to erroneous content published in the journals. However, retracted articles may continue to damage science if they are still cited as legitimate articles. Objective: To characterize patterns of postretraction citations, particularly in microRNA biomarker research, a field with one of the highest rates of retraction. Evidence Review: Retracted scientific articles on microRNAs were retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, and Retraction Watch between database inception and July 17, 2021, according to preestablished search strategies. Control articles with characteristics in common with retracted articles (ie, published in the same journals in the same years and months and with the same number of authors) were matched and retrieved from PubMed. Citation metrics of retractions and control articles were collected from Web of Science. PubPeer was referenced to examine the public response or comments on included retractions. Data were analyzed from September 2021 through March 2023. Findings: A total of 10 461 articles were analyzed, with 887 retractions and 9574 articles as controls. Among retracted articles, which were published from 1999 to 2021, there were 756 articles (85.23%) written by researchers affiliated with Chinese institutions. Retracted articles were cited 6327 times after retraction. Of 792 retracted articles that were cited, 621 articles (78.41%) were cited at least once after retraction and 238 articles (30.05%) were cited more often after retraction than before retraction. Overall citations (comprising citations before and after retraction) and postretraction citations accumulated over time (eg, the median [IQR] number of postretraction citations was 1 [1-2] and 23 [9-44] citations at the first 6 and 66 months, respectively, between retraction and citation retrieval). A random sample of 87 retracted articles (9.81%) recorded 478 citations after retraction, with 208 citations (43.51%) in articles published 12 months or longer after retraction. Of these citing articles, 19 articles (3.97%) mentioned the retractions. Compared with the control group of 1620 nonretracted articles, no significant differences were found in overall number of citations or citations after retraction. Among 478 articles citing retracted articles, 414 articles were found on PubMed and had matched control articles; these articles had higher odds of being subsequently retracted than 7954 matched control articles (odds ratio, 6.57; 95% CI, 3.39-12.72). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, retraction was not associated with a reduction in citations of retracted articles, but articles that cited retracted publications had higher odds of later retraction. These findings suggest that journals may need to implement mechanisms for detection of postretraction citations.

Investigate the relationship between the retraction reasons and the quality of methodology in non-Cochrane retracted systematic reviews: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review aimed to investigate the relationship between retraction status and the methodology quality in the retracted non-Cochrane systematic review. METHOD: PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched with keywords including systematic review, meta-analysis, and retraction or retracted as a type of publication until September 2023. There were no time or language restrictions. Non-Cochrane medical systematic review studies that were retracted were included in the present study. The data related to the retraction status of the articles were extracted from the retraction notice and Retraction Watch, and the quality of the methodology was evaluated with the AMSTAR-2 checklist by two independent researchers. Data were analyzed in the Excel 2019 and SPSS 21 software. RESULT: Of the 282 systematic reviews, the corresponding authors of 208 (73.75%) articles were from China. The average interval between publish and retraction of the article was about 23 months and about half of the non-Cochrane systematic reviews were retracted in the last 4 years. The most common reasons for retractions were fake peer reviews and unreliable data, respectively. Editors and publishers were the most retractors or requestors for retractions. More than 86% of the retracted non-Cochrane SRs were published in journals with an impact factor above two and had a critically low quality. Items 7, 9, and 13 among the critical items of the AMSTAR-2 checklist received the lowest scores. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: There was a significant relationship between the reasons of retraction and the quality of the methodology (P-value < 0.05). Plagiarism software and using the Cope guidelines may decrease the time of retraction. In some countries, strict rules for promoting researchers increase the risk of misconduct. To avoid scientific errors and improve the quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs), it is better to create protocol registration and retraction guidelines in each journal for SRs/MAs.

Surveillance of clinical research integrity in medically assisted reproduction: a systematic review of retracted publications.

Background and purpose: Retraction is a significant consequence of scientific research, resulting from various factors ranging from unintentional errors to intentional misconduct. Previous reviews on retracted publications in obstetrics and gynecology have identified "article duplication," "plagiarism," and "fabricated results" as the main reasons for retraction. However, the extent of retracted articles in the literature on medically assisted reproduction (MAR) remains unclear. This systematic review aimed to assess the number and characteristics of retracted articles in the field of MAR. Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed for this study. A comprehensive literature search was conducted on the PubMed database from 1993 to February 2023, limited to English articles and including all 283 terms from the International Glossary on Infertility and Fertility Care. To identify retracted studies, a specific query combining the 283 terms from the glossary with a retraction-related keyword was used. Only studies focused on MAR and involving human subjects were included. Results: The electronic search yielded a total of 523,067 records in the field of infertility and fertility care. Among these, a total of 2,458 records were identified as retracted. The citation retraction rate was found to be 0.47% (2,458/523,067; 95%CI 0.45-0.49), and the citation retraction rate for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was 0.20% (93/45,616; 95%CI 0.16-0.25). A total of 39 retracted articles specifically related to MAR were identified. Among these, 41.0% were RCTs (n = 16), 15.4% were reviews (n = 6), and 10.3% were retrospective studies (n = 4) or prospective studies (n = 4). Most of the retractions occurred shortly after publication, with "plagiarism" being the most common reason for retraction, followed by "duplicate publication." Discussion: The issue of retraction exists within the field of infertility and fertility care, including MAR. Our findings indicate that scientific misconduct, particularly plagiarism and duplicate publication, are the primary causes of retraction in MAR. Despite finding that the proportion of retracted citations is low, promoting scientific integrity should be a priority. The consequences of article retractions have significant implications for patient care and the scientific community. Hence, it is crucial to prioritize thorough screening of manuscripts before publication to maintain research integrity. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=185769, PROSPERO, identifier: CRD42020185769.

How an Indian dental school climbed the ranks.

Prodigious self-citation helps Saveetha Dental College top global lists, investigation finds.

Scientific Integrity Requires Publishing Rebuttals and Retracting Problematic Papers.

Recently, an article by Seneff et al. entitled "Innate immunosuppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes, and MicroRNAs" was published in Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT). Here, we describe why this article, which contains unsubstantiated claims and misunderstandings such as "billions of lives are potentially at risk" with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, is problematic and should be retracted. We report here our request to the editor of FCT to have our rebuttal published, unfortunately rejected after three rounds of reviewing. Fighting the spread of false information requires enormous effort while receiving little or no credit for this necessary work, which often even ends up being threatened. This need for more scientific integrity is at the heart of our advocacy, and we call for large support, especially from editors and publishers, to fight more effectively against deadly disinformation.

Inappropriate Citation of Retracted Articles in Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine Publications.

BACKGROUND: Retracted articles represent research withdrawn from the existing body of literature after publication. Research articles may be retracted for several reasons ranging from honest errors to intentional misconduct. They should not be used as reliable sources, and it is unclear why they are cited occasionally by other articles. This study hypothesized that several mechanisms may contribute to citing retracted literature and aimed to analyze the characteristics of articles citing retracted literature in anesthesiology and critical care. METHODS: Using the Retraction Watch database, we retrieved retracted articles on anesthesiology and intensive care medicine up to August 16, 2021, and identified the papers citing these retracted articles. A survey designed to investigate the reasons for citing these articles was sent to the corresponding authors of the citing papers. RESULTS: We identified 478 retracted articles, 220 (46%) of which were cited at least once. We contacted 1297 corresponding authors of the papers that cited these articles, 417 (30%) of whom responded to our survey and were included in the final analysis. The median number of authors in the analyzed articles was five, and the median elapsed time from retraction to citation was 3 yr. Most of the corresponding authors (372, 89%) were unaware of the retracted status of the cited article, mainly because of inadequate notification of the retraction status in journals and/or databases and the use of stored copies. CONCLUSIONS: The corresponding authors were generally unaware of the retraction of the cited article, usually because of inadequate identification of the retracted status in journals and/or web databases and the use of stored copies. Awareness of this phenomenon and rigorous control of the cited references before submitting a paper are of fundamental importance in research.

Downstream retraction of preprinted research in the life and medical sciences.

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.

An analysis of retracted articles in the field of pancreatic diseases.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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". RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Bibliometric and Altmetric Analysis of Retracted Articles on COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.