Skip to content

ACN - 101321555 | ABN - 39101321555

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

AHRECS icon
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Menu
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Exclude terms...
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
AHRECS
Analysis
Animal ethics
Animal Ethics Committee
Animal handling
Animal housing
Animal Research Ethics
Animal Welfare
ANZCCART
Artificial Intelligence
Arts
Australia
Authorship
Belief
Beneficence
Big data
Big data
Biobank
Bioethics
Biomedical
Biospecimens
Breaches
Cartoon/Funny
Case studies
Clinical trial
Collaborative research
Conflicts of interest
Consent
Controversy/Scandal
Controversy/Scandal
Creative
Culture
Data management
Database
Dual-use
Essential Reading
Ethical review
Ethnography
Euthanasia
Evaluative practice/quality assurance
First People
Fraud
Gender
Genetics
Good practice
Guidance
Honesty
HREC
Human research ethics
Humanities
Institutional responsibilities
International
Journal
Justice
Links
Media
Medical research
Merit and integrity
Methodology
Monitoring
New Zealand
News
Online research
Peer review
Performance
Primary materials
Principles
Privacy
Protection for participants
Psychology
Publication ethics
Questionable Publishers
Research ethics committees
Research integrity
Research Misconduct
Research results
Researcher responsibilities
Resources
Respect for persons
Sample paperwork
sd
Serious Adverse Event
Social Science
SoTL
Standards
Supervision
Training
Vulnerability
x
Young people
Exclude news

Sort by

Animal Ethics Biosafety Human Research Ethics Research Integrity

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 (Preprint papers: Geoff Frampton, et al | October 2021)

Posted by Dr Gary Allen in Research Integrity on November 4, 2021
Keywords: Breaches, Institutional responsibilities, Journal, Medical research, Research integrity, Research Misconduct, Research results

The Linked Original Item was Posted On October, 27 2021

Hacked Accounts Newspaper Headlines Online Theft 3d Render Illustration

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.

The inclusion of retracted work in the scholarly record is a significant concern.  When the research is dodgy, it can be a source of risk (e.g. when it impacts clinical care).  Journals don’t always do a good job in the way they report retractions.  The Retraction Watch database is a great tool.  We have included links to 23 related items.

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.

Frampton, G., Woods, L., Scott, D.A. (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): e0258935.
Publisher (Open Access): https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0258935

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 err…

Related Reading

Continued Use of Retracted Publications: Implications for Information Systems and Scientific Publishing (Papers: Peiling Wang, et al | January 2022)

On retraction – Ecco-Evo-Evo-Eco (Hendry, et al | May 2021)

(France) Scientific image sleuth faces legal action for criticizing research papers – Nature (Holly Else | May 2021)

25,000: That’s how many retractions are now in the Retraction Watch Database – Retraction Watch (April 2021)

List of retracted COVID-19 papers grows past 70 – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | December 2020)

Ivan Oransky on Scientific Papers – The Body of Evidence (Interview | November 2020)

Related Links

  • About the contributors
  • About the keywords
  • Suggest a resource
  • Report problem/broken link
  • Request a Take Down

Compiled here are links, downloads and other resources relating to research integrity and human research ethics. more…

Resources Menu

Four hands solving a jigsaw against the sun blazing out of a cloudy sky

Research Integrity

  • Codes, guidelines, policies and standards
  • Guidance and resource material
  • Papers
  • Books
  • Animal Ethics

Human Research Ethics

  • Codes, guidelines, policies and standards
  • Guidance and resource material
  • Papers
  • Books

Research Ethics Monthly Receive copies of the Research Ethics Monthly directly
by email. We will never spam you.

  • Enter the answer as a word
  • Hidden
    This field is hidden and only used for import to Mailchimp
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Menu
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
Menu
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map
Menu
  • Site Map

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in