Comparative analysis of retracted pre-print and peer-reviewed articles on COVID-19
Sra, M. S.; Arora, M.; Mazumder, A.; Goyal, R. M.; Parameswaran, G. G.; Meena, J. K.
Show abstract
IntroductionDue to the accelerated pace and quantum of scientific publication during the COVID-19 pandemic, a large number of articles on COVID-19 have been retracted. Pre-prints though not peer-reviewed offer the advantage of rapid dissemination of new findings. In this study, we aim to systematically compare the article characteristics, time to retraction, social media attention, citations, and reasons for retraction between retracted pre-print and peer-reviewed articles on COVID-19. MethodsWe utilized the Retraction Watch database to identify retracted articles on COVID-19 published from 1st January 2020 to 10th March 2022. The articles were reviewed and metadata such as article characteristics (type, category), time to retraction, reasons for retraction, and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) and citation count were collected. ResultsWe identified 40 retracted pre-prints and 143 retracted peer-reviewed articles. The median (IQR) retraction time for pre-print and peer-reviewed articles was 29 (10-81.5) days and 139 (63-202) days (p = 0.0001). Pre-prints and peer-reviewed article had median (IQR) AAS of 26.5 (4-1155) and 8 (1-38.5), respectively (p = 0.0082). The median (IQR) citation count for pre-prints and peer-reviewed articles was 3 (0-14) and 3 (0-17), respectively (p = 0.5633). The AAS and citation counts were correlated for both pre-prints (r = 0.5200, p = 0.0006) and peer-reviewed articles(r = 0.5909, p = 0.0001). The commonest reason for retraction for pre-prints and peer-reviewed articles concerns about data and results. ConclusionThe increased adoption of pre-prints results in faster identification of erroneous articles compared to the traditional peer-review process.
Matching journals
The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Motivations, concerns and selection biases when posting preprints: a survey of bioRxiv authors 96%
- Reliability of citations of medRxiv preprints in articles published on COVID-19 in the world leading medical journals 95%
- Attitudes and Practices of Open Data, Preprinting, and Peer-review - a Cross Sectional Study on Croatian Scientists 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- The efficacy of Andrographis paniculata (Burm.f.) Wall. ex Nees crude extract in hospitalised mild COVID-19 patients: a retrospective cohort study 87%
- TissueGrinder, a novel technology for rapid generation of patient-derived single cell suspensions from solid tumors by mechanical tissue dissociation 86%
- Is the infection of the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant associated with the outcomes of COVID-19 patients? 86%
Similar papers in this journal
- A step-by-step Researcher’s Guide to the use of an AI-based transformer in epidemiology: an exploratory analysis of ChatGPT using the STROBE checklist for observational studies 91%
- Are COVID-19 data reliable? The case of the European Union 88%
- Study demands and health status among medical students in two German universities 87%
Similar papers in this journal
- Research productivity and collaboration of the NIH-funded HIV Vaccine Trials Network: a bibliometric analysis 89%
- Perceptions of Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine: Insights from a Large-Scale International Cross-Sectional Survey of Surgery Researchers and Clinicians 88%
- A small H2O-soluble ingredient of royal jelly lower cholesterol levels in liver cells by suppressing squalene epoxidase 88%
"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.