The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

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

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
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

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.

1932-6203
Frampton, Geoff
26c6163c-3428-45b8-b8b9-92091ff6c69f
Woods, Lois
8149aa11-7664-4052-a18b-98f7bde83180
Scott, David Alexander
19b5fd34-9974-4ae4-8be0-27a693639e20
Frampton, Geoff
26c6163c-3428-45b8-b8b9-92091ff6c69f
Woods, Lois
8149aa11-7664-4052-a18b-98f7bde83180
Scott, David Alexander
19b5fd34-9974-4ae4-8be0-27a693639e20

Frampton, Geoff, Woods, Lois and Scott, David Alexander (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, 16 (10 October), [e0258935]. (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0258935).

Record type: Article

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.

Text
journal.pone.0258935 - Version of Record
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (585kB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 10 October 2021
Published date: 27 October 2021

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 452905
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/452905
ISSN: 1932-6203
PURE UUID: 0b9e9f57-9e9a-4e89-bd8f-473ad61c270e
ORCID for Geoff Frampton: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-2005-0497
ORCID for Lois Woods: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-4587-9149
ORCID for David Alexander Scott: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0001-6475-8046

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 06 Jan 2022 17:48
Last modified: 17 Mar 2024 04:02

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Geoff Frampton ORCID iD
Author: Lois Woods ORCID iD
Author: David Alexander Scott ORCID iD

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×