ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Retraction is a mechanism for alerting readers to unreliable material and other problems in the published scientific and scholarly record. Retracted publications generally remain visible and searchable, but the intention of retraction is to mark them as "removed" from the citable record of scholarship. However, in practice, some retracted articles continue to be treated by researchers and the public as valid content as they are often unaware of the retraction. Research over the past decade has identified a number of factors contributing to the unintentional spread of retracted research. The goal of the Reducing the Inadvertent Spread of Retracted Science: Shaping a Research and Implementation Agenda (RISRS) project was to develop an actionable agenda for reducing the inadvertent spread of retracted science. This included identifying how retraction status could be more thoroughly disseminated, and determining what actions are feasible and relevant for particular stakeholders who play a role in the distribution of knowledge. METHODS: These recommendations were developed as part of a year-long process that included a scoping review of empirical literature and successive rounds of stakeholder consultation, culminating in a three-part online workshop that brought together a diverse body of 65 stakeholders in October-November 2020 to engage in collaborative problem solving and dialogue. Stakeholders held roles such as publishers, editors, researchers, librarians, standards developers, funding program officers, and technologists and worked for institutions such as universities, governmental agencies, funding organizations, publishing houses, libraries, standards organizations, and technology providers. Workshop discussions were seeded by materials derived from stakeholder interviews (N = 47) and short original discussion pieces contributed by stakeholders. The online workshop resulted in a set of recommendations to address the complexities of retracted research throughout the scholarly communications ecosystem. RESULTS: The RISRS recommendations are: (1) Develop a systematic cross-industry approach to ensure the public availability of consistent, standardized, interoperable, and timely information about retractions; (2) Recommend a taxonomy of retraction categories/classifications and corresponding retraction metadata that can be adopted by all stakeholders; (3) Develop best practices for coordinating the retraction process to enable timely, fair, unbiased outcomes; and (4) Educate stakeholders about pre- and post-publication stewardship, including retraction and correction of the scholarly record. CONCLUSIONS: Our stakeholder engagement study led to 4 recommendations to address inadvertent citation of retracted research, and formation of a working group to develop the Communication of Retractions, Removals, and Expressions of Concern (CORREC) Recommended Practice. Further work will be needed to determine how well retractions are currently documented, how retraction of code and datasets impacts related publications, and to identify if retraction metadata (fails to) propagate. Outcomes of all this work should lead to ensuring retracted papers are never cited without awareness of the retraction, and that, in public fora outside of science, retracted papers are not treated as valid scientific outputs.
ABSTRACT
Preprints are a crucial vehicle for knowledge dissemination in modern times. The vigorous development of the preprint industry demonstrates the significance of open science and represents a significant change in the manner research results are disseminated. This study explores preprints through literature analysis. Specifically, publication ethics issues related to preprints and their role in knowledge dissemination during the COVID-19 pandemic are discussed. First, this study examines the history and characteristics of preprints, investigating their functions and features in academic research and knowledge dissemination. Further, three issues related to publication ethics resulting from the knowledge dissemination model of preprints are presented. The study also sheds light on preprints in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, including the quantity and quality of preprints. In addition, the positive impact of preprints on knowledge dissimilation during the COVID-19 pandemic and some latent problems are also discussed. Finally, the author of this study proposes suggestions for institutions and individuals serving different roles in the academic community regarding the aspects in which they can help promote the publication ethics and rightful knowledge dissemination of preprints. © 2022. Journal of Educational Media and Library Sciences.All Rights Reserved
ABSTRACT
This chapter examines the ethical challenges of treating and caring for Covid patients. Healthcare professionals are at risks to be infected by SARS-CoV-2, and in all countries illness and death has affected them as well as their families. The ethical discussion focuses on whether professionals have a duty to treat and to care, when there is substantial personal risk, particularly when sufficient protective equipment is not available. Ethical issues also exist for patients. They can experience various kinds of harm as a result of having contracted an infectious disease, and as the result of being in isolation during treatment in the healthcare facility. Patients with other diseases are harmed because modalities of treatment and care are cancelled or postponed since priority is given to Covid patients. A further ethical concern relates to the difficulty to maintain ordinary standards of care in conditions of emergency. Specific attention is subsequently given to ethical questions of research. The only way to improve the treatment of Covid patients is sustained research to test and develop medication. Intensive public debate has emerged on the subject of triage. If resources, especially in intensive care, are limited, which patients will be selected for treatment, and which criteria are ethically justified? The last paragraph of this chapter will focus on end-of-life care, and the need to provide palliative care to seriously ill Covid patients. © 2022, The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
ABSTRACT
Objective: To describe the editorial processing time of published COVID-19 research articles and compare this with a similar topic, human influenza, and analyze the number of publications, withdrawals, and retractions. Methods: A descriptive-analytical study using PubMed on research articles with the MeSH terms human influenza and COVID-19. Time to acceptance (from submission to acceptance) and time to publication (from acceptance to publication) were compared. Retractions and withdrawals were reviewed both qualitatively and quantitatively. Results: There were 31 319 research articles on COVID-19 and 4 287 on human influenza published during 2020. The median time to acceptance for COVID-19 was lower than that for human influenza (8 vs. 92 days). The median time to publication for COVID-19 articles was shorter than those on human influenza (12 vs. 16 days); 47.0% of COVID-19 research articles were accepted within the first week of submission, and 19.5% within one day. There were 82 retractions and withdrawals for COVID-19 articles, 1 for human influenza, and 5 for articles that contain both terms; these were mainly related to ethical misconduct, and 27 (31.0%) were published by the same group of authors in one highest-quartile journal. Conclusions: The conundrum between fast publishing and adequate standards is shown in this analysis of COVID-19 research articles. The speed of acceptance for COVID-19 manuscripts was 11.5 times faster than for human influenza. The high number of acceptances within a day or week of submission and the number of retractions and withdrawals of COVID-19 papers might be a warning sign about the possible lack of a quality control process in scientific publishing and the peer review process.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine publication trends in leading clinical research journals (impact factor >20) during the rise of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and to check for an increase in publication times of non-COVID-19 original research articles. METHODS: We collected publication data from five print-based medical journals and one online journal--JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet (Lancet), The New England Journal of Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, The BMJ (BMJ), and BMC Medicine (BMC Med)--for the December 2019 through May 2020 period. We categorized each article as either "COVID-19-related" or "non-COVID-19-related". When available, we further extracted data on submission-to-acceptance dates and acceptance-to-publication dates for original research articles for the January through July 2019 and January through July 2020 periods. We compared the time from submission to publication for non-COVID-19 original research articles during the two periods and tested for statistical significance with a one-tailed Wilcoxon rank-sum test. RESULTS: We found that non-COVID-19-related articles began decreasing in volume as COVID-19-related articles increased. In BMJ and Lancet, the COVID-19-related articles began overtaking the non-COVID-19-related articles in number during April and May 2020. However, COVID-19-related primary research articles only began consistently appearing in journal issues during May 2020. Only BMJ and BMC Med publicly recorded complete data regarding their publication timelines. After removing outliers, we found that the mean time from submission to publication for articles published in BMJ from January through July 2019 was 204 days (median: 194 days; IQR: 163-236), and from January through July 2020 was 223 days (median: 218 days; IQR: 177-261) (p=0.04). In BMC Med, the mean time from submission to publication from February through July 2019 was 153 days (median: 150 days; IQR: 123-181), and from February through July 2020 was 163 days (median: 157 days; IQR: 132-191) (p=0.06). Conclusion: We discovered a steadily increasing trend in the percentage of COVID-19-related articles and a concomitant decreasing trend in the percentage of non-COVID-19-related articles published in high-impact print journals during the period from December 2019 through May 2020. For non-COVID-19-related articles published in BMJ, we found a statistically significant increase upon comparing the submission-to-publication times for the period from January through July 2020 with the submission-to-publication times for the period from January through July 2019.
ABSTRACT
Frauds and misconduct have been common in the history of science. Recent events connected to the COVID-19 pandemic have highlighted how the risks and consequences of this are no longer acceptable. Two papers, addressing the treatment of COVID-19, have been published in two of the most prestigious medical journals; the authors declared to have analysed electronic health records from a private corporation, which apparently collected data of tens of thousands of patients, coming from hundreds of hospitals. Both papers have been retracted a few weeks later. When such events happen, the confidence of the population in scientific research is likely to be weakened. This paper highlights how the current system endangers the reliability of scientific research, and the very foundations of the trust system on which modern healthcare is based. Having shed light on the dangers of a system without appropriate monitoring, the proposed analysis suggests to strengthen the existing journal policies and improve the research process using new technologies supporting control activities by public authorities. Among these solutions, we mention the promising aspects of the blockchain technology which seems a promising solution to avoid the repetition of the mistakes linked to the recent and past history of research.