The Citation of Retracted COVID-19 Papers is Common and Rarely Critical
Meyerowitz-Katz, G.; Sekhar, P.; Besancon, L.; Turner, T.; McDonald, S.
Show abstract
BackgroundRetraction is the final safeguard against research error/misconduct. In principle, retraction exists to prevent serious issues identified in published research through post-publication review. Our study investigated the citing of clinical research papers retracted during the COVID-19 pandemic. MethodsWe used the Retraction Watch database extracted as of 27/01/2022 to identify retracted COVID-19 papers and the Google Scholar citation function to gather a dataset of citations of retracted clinical research. We reviewed key aspects of the citing research. ResultsIn total, the Retraction Watch database included 212 entries for retracted COVID-19 papers. Of these, 53 papers were clinical. There were a total of 1,141 citations of retracted papers, with 105 errors, leaving 1,036 citations to analyze. The majority (86%) of citations were not critical. The majority (80%) of papers citing retracted research were published after the retraction date. ConclusionsThe citation of retracted and withdrawn COVID-19 clinical studies is common, and rarely critical. Most researchers who cite retracted research do not identify that the paper is retracted, even when submitting long after the paper has been withdrawn. This has serious implications for the reliability of published research and the academic literature, which need to be addressed.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- COVID-19-related research data availability and quality according to the FAIR principles: A meta-research study 97%
- Transparency in peer review: Exploring the content and tone of reviewers' confidential comments to editors 96%
- Reliability of citations of medRxiv preprints in articles published on COVID-19 in the world leading medical journals 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- The use of the Registered Reports format for publication of randomized clinical trials: a cross-sectional study 95%
- The impact of retracted randomised controlled trials on systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines: a meta-epidemiological study 95%
- Characteristics and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews of prevalence studies in adult populations: a meta-epidemiological study 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Comparison of preprints and final journal publications from COVID-19 Studies: Discrepancies in results reporting and spin in interpretation 96%
- Publishing at any cost: a cross-sectional study of the amount that medical researchers spend on open-access publishing each year 95%
- Reporting of Retrospective Registration in Clinical Trial Publications 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Title: Risk factors for severe disease in patients admitted with COVID-19 to a hospital in London, England: a retrospective cohort study 88%
- Trust in the scientific research community predicts intent to comply with COVID-19 prevention measures: An analysis of a large-scale international survey dataset 88%
- Covid-19 and excess mortality rates not comparable across countries 87%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.