Scholarly Publishing, Boundary Processes, and the Problem of Fake Peer Reviews.

Over the past decade, the phenomenon of "fake" peer reviews has caused growing consternation among scholarly publishers. Yet despite the significant behind-the-scenes impact that anxieties about fakery have had on peer review processes within scholarly journals, the phenomenon itself has been subject to little scholarly analysis. Rather than treating fake reviews as a straightforward descriptive category, in this article, we explore how the discourse on fake reviews emerged and why, and what it tells us about its seeming antithesis, "genuine" peer review. Our primary source of data are two influential adjudicators of scholarly publishing integrity that have been critical to the emergence of the concept of the fake review: Retraction Watch and the Committee on Publication Ethics. Via an analysis of their respective blog posts, Forum cases, presentations, and best practice guidance, we build a genealogy of the fake review discourse and highlight the variety of players involved in staking out the fake. We conclude that constant work is required to maintain clear lines of separation between genuine and fake reviews and highlight how the concept has served to reassert the boundaries between science and society in a context where they have increasingly been questioned.

The impact of "Five No's for Publication" on academic misconduct.

China initiated the "Five No's for Publication" in December 2015 as a response to rising incidents of retraction. Use the number of retracted publications and their original publication time as proxies to investigate the effect of the Five No's policy on academic misconduct. We searched the Retraction Watch Database for research articles published by Chinese scholars from 1 March 2010 to 29 February 2020. The short- and long-term trends of the number of publications were presented by conducting an interrupted time series analysis in quarterly time units. Of 4,215 retracted papers with Chinese authors, 2,881 involving academic misconduct were identified. In the first quarter (12.01.2015-02.29.2016) after the implementation of the Five No's, an average reduction of 55.80 (p < 0.001) publications that involve academic misconduct was observed, although there was an increase in the trend of publications of 3.34 per quarter (p < 0.01) in the long run (12.01.2015-02.29.2020), relative to the pre-intervention period (03.01.2010-11.30.2015). The validity of these results was further supported by three different robustness checks. China's government should strengthen enforcement, promote education, and improve the scientific evaluation system to consolidate the influence of the Five No's policy and foster an ethical research environment.

[Analysis of the characteristics of retracted scientific papers in the field of global liver diseases published by Chinese scholars].

Objective: To analyze the characteristics of scientific papers in the field of global liver diseases published by Chinese scholars that were retracted for diverse reasons from the Retraction Watch database, so as to provide a reference to publishing-related papers. Methods: The Retraction Watch database was retrieved for retracted papers in the field of global liver disease published by Chinese scholars from March 1, 2008 to January 28, 2021. The regional distribution, source journals, reasons for retraction, publication and retraction times, and others were analyzed. Results: A total of 101 retracted papers that were distributed across 21 provinces/cities were retrieved. Zhejiang area (n = 17) had the most retracted papers, followed by Shanghai (n = 14), and Beijing (n = 11). The vast majority were research papers (n = 95). The journal PLoS One had the highest number of retracted papers. In terms of time distribution, 2019 (n = 36) had the most retracted papers. 23 papers, accounting for 8.3% of all retractions, were retracted owing to journal or publisher concerns. Liver cancer (34%), liver transplantation (16%), hepatitis (14%), and others were the main areas of retracted papers. Conclusion: Chinese scholars have a large number of retracted articles in the field of global liver diseases. A journal or publisher chooses to retract a manuscript after investigating and discovering more flawed problems, which, however, require further support, revision, and supervision from the editorial and academic circles.

Analysis of the characteristics of retracted scientific papers in the field of global liver diseases published by Chinese scholars / 中华肝脏病杂志

Objective: To analyze the characteristics of scientific papers in the field of global liver diseases published by Chinese scholars that were retracted for diverse reasons from the Retraction Watch database, so as to provide a reference to publishing-related papers. Methods: The Retraction Watch database was retrieved for retracted papers in the field of global liver disease published by Chinese scholars from March 1, 2008 to January 28, 2021. The regional distribution, source journals, reasons for retraction, publication and retraction times, and others were analyzed. Results: A total of 101 retracted papers that were distributed across 21 provinces/cities were retrieved. Zhejiang area (n = 17) had the most retracted papers, followed by Shanghai (n = 14), and Beijing (n = 11). The vast majority were research papers (n = 95). The journal PLoS One had the highest number of retracted papers. In terms of time distribution, 2019 (n = 36) had the most retracted papers. 23 papers, accounting for 8.3% of all retractions, were retracted owing to journal or publisher concerns. Liver cancer (34%), liver transplantation (16%), hepatitis (14%), and others were the main areas of retracted papers. Conclusion: Chinese scholars have a large number of retracted articles in the field of global liver diseases. A journal or publisher chooses to retract a manuscript after investigating and discovering more flawed problems, which, however, require further support, revision, and supervision from the editorial and academic circles.

Retracted randomized controlled trials were cited and not corrected in systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether and when the correction is done in Systematic Reviews (SRs) and Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) when included Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) have been retracted. METHODS: In this meta-epidemiological study, we included SRs and CPGs citing the retracted RCTs from the Retraction Watch Database. We investigated how often the retracted RCTs were cited in SRs and CPGs. We also investigated whether and when such SRs and CPGs corrected themselves. RESULTS: We identified 587 articles (525 SRs and 62 CPGs) citing retracted RCTs. Among the 587 articles, 252 (43%) were published after retraction, and 335 (57%) were published before retraction. Among 127 articles published citing already retracted RCTs in their evidence synthesis without caution, none corrected themselves after publication. Of 335 articles published before retraction, 239 included RCTs that were later retracted in their evidence synthesis. Among them, only 5% of SRs (9/196) and 5% of CPGs (2/43) corrected or retracted their results. CONCLUSION: Many SRs and CPGs included already or later retracted RCTs without caution. Most of them were never corrected. The scientific community, including publishers and researchers, should make systematic and concerted efforts to remove the impact of retracted RCTs.

An analysis of retractions in neurosurgery and allied clinical and basic science specialties.

BACKGROUND: As the volume of scientific publications increases, the rate of retraction of published papers is also likely to increase. In the present study, we report the characteristics of retracted papers from clinical neurosurgery and allied clinical and basic science specialties. METHODS: Retracted papers were identified using two separate search strategies on PubMed. Attributes of the retracted papers were collected from PubMed and the Retraction Watch database. The reasons for retraction were analyzed. The factors that correlated with time to retraction were identified. Detailed citation analysis for the retracted papers was performed. The retraction rates for neurosurgery journals were computed. RESULTS: A total of 191 retractions were identified; 55% pertained to clinical neurosurgery. The most common reasons for retraction were plagiarism, duplication, and compromised peer review. The countries associated with the highest number of retractions were China, USA, and Japan. The full text of the retraction notice was not available for 11% of the papers. A median of 50% of all citations received by the papers occurred after retraction. The factors that correlated with a longer time to retraction included basic science category, the number of collaborating departments, and the H-index of the journal. The overall rate of retractions in neurosurgery journals was 0.037%. CONCLUSIONS: The retraction notice needs to be freely available on all search engines. Plagiarism checks and reference checks prior to publication of papers (to ensure no retracted papers have been cited) must be mandatory. Mandatory data deposition would help overcome issues with data and results.

For how long and with what relevance do genetics articles retracted due to research misconduct remain active in the scientific literature.

We aimed to quantify the number of pre- and post-retraction citations obtained by genetics articles retracted due to research misconduct. All retraction notices available in the Retraction Watch database for genetics articles published in 1970-2016 were assessed. The reasons for retraction were fabrication/falsification and plagiarism. The endpoints were the number of citations of retracted articles and when and how journals reported on retractions and whether this was published on PubMed.Four hundred and sixty retracted genetics articles were cited 34,487 times; 7,945 (23%) were post-retraction citations. Median time to retraction and time to last citation were 3.2 and 3 years, respectively. Most (96%) had a PubMed retraction notice, One percent of these were totally removed from journal websites altogether, and 4% had no information available on either the online or PDF versions. Ninety percent of citations were from articles retracted due to falsification/fabrication. The percentage of post-retraction citations was significantly higher in the case of plagiarism (42%) than in the case of fabrication/falsification (21.5%) (p<0.001). Median time to retraction was shorter (1.3 years) in the case of plagiarism than for fabrication/falsification (4.8 years, p<0.001). The retraction was more frequently reported in the PDFs (70%) for the fabrication/falsification cases than for the plagiarism cases (43%, p<0.001). The highest rate of retracted papers due to falsification/fabrication was among authors in the USA, and the highest rate for plagiarism was in China.Although most retractions were appropriately handled by journals, the gravest issue was that median time to retraction for articles retracted for falsification/fabrication was nearly 5 years, earning close to 6800 post-retraction citations. Journals should implement processes to speed-up the retraction process that will help to minimize post-retraction citations.

Analysis of biomedical Spanish articles retracted between 1970 and 2018. / Análisis de los artículos españoles de biomedicina retractados entre 1970 y 2018.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To analyse articles retracted due to irregularities by authors helps to determine the state of scientific integrity of a discipline or country. The Retraction Watch (RW) database is the largest worldwide database on retracted articles. The objective was to determine the reasons for and features of retracted biomedical articles by Spanish authors. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A search was conducted in the RW database of 7 types of scientific articles from 9 biomedicine disciplines -biology, genetics, medicine, microbiology, neurosciences, nutrition, dentistry, public health and toxicology-, with at least one author working in a Spanish centre, and published between 1970 and 2018. The features of the articles and the reasons for their retraction were recorded. RESULTS: Of the 18,621 retracted articles, 217 (1%) were by Spanish authors; 155 (74%) were on biomedicine and the types of articles of interest. In most cases, there were several reasons for retracting an article. Research misconduct (fabrication, falsification, plagiarism) and duplication were involved in 25% and 35% of the cases, respectively. Twenty-two percent of the articles were retracted due to errors by the authors or the journals. A dentist retracted 18 articles -all from the same journal and in the same year, 2018-, which accounts for 12% of all retracted biomedicine articles. CONCLUSION: The number of retracted biomedicine articles by Spanish authors is low. Research misconduct was a frequent reason, with a similar percentage of articles retracted due to honest errors.

The disastrous boomerang effects of "citation mania".

The recent publication of a commentary article by Dadkhah et al. (J Cell Commun Signal 11:181-185, 2017) which addressed issues raised by the citation of questionable scientific papers in current databases and the recent retraction of manuscripts dealing with the biological properties of the CCN1 protein by Lin et al. (J Biol Chem 291(53):27433, 2016) prompted us to examine how this situation reflects an evolution of the original citation system, endangering scientific communication. We argue that the increasing number of publication retractions that have been witnessed over several years is a direct consequence of the bias created by the inconsistency of citation metrics.