Retracted Covid-19 articles: significantly more cited than other articles within their journal of origin.

With the expansion of research volume, coinciding with the age of the internet, the retraction of published papers from scientific journals has become crucial to preserving scientific integrity. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, both public and professional interest in scientific literature has grown as people attempt to educate themselves on the virus. The Retraction Watch Database COVID-19 blog was accessed in June and November of 2022 and analyzed to ensure articles met inclusion criteria. Articles were then accessed on Google Scholar and the Scopus database to find number of citations and SJR/CiteScore. The average SJR and CiteScore for a journal that published one of the articles was 1.531 and 7.3 respectively. The retracted articles were cited an average of 44.8 times, which was significantly higher than the average CiteScore (p = 0.01). Between June and November, retracted COVID-19 articles gained a total of 728 new citations, presence of "withdrawn" or "retracted" before article title did not affect citation rates. COPE guidelines for retraction statements were not met for 32% of articles. We believe retracted COVID-19 publications may have been more likely to include bold claims that garnered a disproportionately high amount of attention within the scientific community. Additionally, we found many journals were not forthright with explanations for why articles had been retracted. Retractions could be a tool used to add to the scientific discourse, but currently we are only getting half the data, the what and not the why.

Retracted Articles, Another Pandemic? Retracted COVID-19 Publications / Artículos retractados, ¿también en pandemia? Publicaciones retractadas sobre la covid-19 / Artigos retratados, também em pandemia? Publicações retratadas sobre a covid-19

Resumen El propósito de este estudio es determinar las características y cantidad de publicaciones biomédicas retractadas sobre la covid-19, a través de la revisión de las bases de datos PubMed y Retraction Watch, para determinar autores, título, revista, fecha de publicación, fecha de retractación y motivo de la retractación. La literatura sobre la covid-19 ya alcanza más de 280.000 artículos, de los cuales 63 ya han sido retractados. Se observan rápidos procesos editoriales tanto para la publicación como para la retractación. Se destacan 25 artículos donde no se proporciona el motivo de la retractación. Dentro de los que sí lo señalan se encuentran publicaciones duplicadas, plagios, falta de aprobación del comité de ética, problemas de datos y metodológicos.

Abstract This study aims to determine the characteristics and number of retracted biomedical publications on COVID-19 using PubMed and Retraction Watch databases to determine authors, titles, journals, publication dates, retraction dates, and reasons for retraction. The COVID-19 literature reaches more than 280,000 articles, of which 63 have been retracted. Quick editorial processes are observed for both publication and retraction. Twenty-five articles do not provide the reason for retraction. Reasons given include duplicate publications, plagiarism, lack of IRB approval, and data and methodology problems.

Resumo O objetivo deste estudo é determinar as características e a quantidade de publicações biomédicas retratadas sobre a covid-19 por meio da revisão das bases de dados PubMed e Retraction Watch, para determinar autores, título, revista, data de publicação, data de retratação e motivo da retratação. A literatura sobre a covid-19 já atinge 280 000 artigos, dos quais 63 já foram retratados. São observados rápidos processos editoriais tanto para publicar quanto para retratar. São destacados 25 artigos em que não é proporcionado o motivo da retratação. Dentro dos que o indicam, são encontrados publicações duplicadas, plágios, falta de aprovação do comitê de ética, problemas com os dados e metodológicos.

Sharing of retracted COVID-19 articles: an altmetric study.

OBJECTIVE: This study examines the extent to which retracted articles pertaining to COVID-19 have been shared via social and mass media based on altmetric scores. METHODS: Seventy-one retracted articles related to COVID-19 were identified from relevant databases, of which thirty-nine had an Altmetric Attention Score obtained using the Altmetrics Bookmarklet. Data extracted from the articles include overall attention score and demographics of sharers (e.g., geographic location, professional affiliation). RESULTS: Retracted articles related to COVID-19 were shared tens of thousands of times to an audience of potentially hundreds of millions of readers and followers. Twitter was the largest medium for sharing these articles, and the United States was the country with the most sharers. While general members of the public were the largest proportion of sharers, researchers and professionals were not immune to sharing these articles on social media and on websites, blogs, or news media. CONCLUSIONS: These findings have potential implications for better understanding the spread of misleading or false information perpetuated in retracted scholarly publications. They emphasize the importance of quality peer review and research ethics among journals and responsibility among individuals who wish to share research findings.

Silently withdrawn or retracted preprints related to Covid-19 are a scholarly threat and a potential public health risk: theoretical arguments and suggested recommendations

Purpose - Thousands of preprints related to Covid-19 have effused into the academic literature. Even though these are not peer-reviewed documents and have not been vetted by medical or other experts, several have been cited, while others have been widely promoted by the media. While many preprints eventually find their way into the published literature, usually through integrated publishing streams, there is a small body of preprints that have been opaquely withdrawn/retracted, without suitable reasons, leaving only a vestigial or skeletal record online. Others have, quite literally, vanished. This paper aims to examine some of those cases. Design/methodology/approach - For peer-reviewed literature, a retracted academic paper is usually watermarked with "RETRACTED" across each page of the document, as recommended by ethical bodies such as the Committee on Publication Ethics, which represents thousands of journals and publishers. Curiously, even though pro-preprint groups claim that preprints are an integral part of the publication process and a scholarly instrument, there are no strict, detailed or established ethical guidelines for preprints on most preprint servers. This paper identifies select withdrawn/retracted preprints and emphasizes that the opaque removal of preprints from the scholarly record may constitute unscholarly, possibly even predatory or unethical, behavior. Findings - Strict ethical guidelines are urgently needed for preprints, and preprint authors, in the case of misconduct, should face the same procedure and consequences as standard peer-reviewed academic literature. Originality/value - Journals and publishers that have silently retracted or withdrawn preprints should reinstate them, as for regular retracted literature, except for highly exceptional cases.

Research done wrong: A comprehensive investigation of retracted publications in COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the publishing of a quantity of scientific research. In less than a year, a record of 200,000 scientific articles have been published on COVID-19. Publishing such a massive quantity of scientific research has instigated publishers to accelerate the review process. An upsurge in the publication rate has resulted in an increase in the retraction rate. This paper focuses on the COVID-19 studies originating across the world from 1 January 2020 to 10 October 2021. The data for this study were mined from http://retractiondatabase.org/. A total of 157 withdrawn articles on COVID-19 were retracted, and it was found that the United States of America contributed 31 (19.75%) retracted articles. Also, 16 (51.61%) of the retracted papers from the United States of America emerge in journals having an Impact Factor (IF). The study presents that 31 (19.75%) retracted articles were worked together by two authors, 26 (16.56%) with one author, and 22 (14.01%) by five authors. Furthermore, Elsevier publishers have the highest retraction rate with 80 (50.96%). Half (50%) of the articles were retracted with "no information" as a reason for retraction. Other reasons for retraction include concern/issues about data, duplication, journal error, lack of approval from a third party, plagiarism, etc.

Monitoring Information Flow on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).

The flow of information on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is intensifying, requiring concerted efforts of all scholars. Peer-reviewed journals as established channels of scientific communications are struggling to keep up with unprecedented high submission rates. Preprint servers are becoming increasingly popular among researchers and authors who set priority over their ideas and research data by pre-publication archiving of their manuscripts on these professional platforms. Most published articles on COVID-19 are now archived by the PubMed Central repository and available for searches on LitCovid, which is a newly designed hub for specialist searches on the subject. Social media platforms are also gaining momentum as channels for rapid dissemination of COVID-19 information. Monitoring, evaluating and filtering information flow through the established and emerging scholarly platforms may improve the situation with the pandemic and save lives.

Self-monitoring of the tympanic membrane: An opportunity for telemedicine during times of COVID-19 and beyond.

The interest for telemedicine has increased since the COVID-19 pandemic because of the risk of infection. Recently, commercial companies started selling digital USB-otoscopes (DUO) that can be connected to a mobile phone. These DUOs are inexpensive (costing approximately $6-35 each) and make it possible to visualize the whole tympanic membrane. Here, we illustrate the case of a patient who had operative correction of a tympanic membrane retraction, and who self-monitored the tympanic membrane in the course of time. Additionally, we discuss the use of DUOs in otolaryngology telemedicine practice. The use of simple digital USB otoscopes provides a promising method to assess and monitor the tympanic membrane remotely. However, more research is needed to establish the role of DUOs in telemedicine.

Publishing volumes in major databases related to Covid-19.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus, which causes Covid-19, induced a global pandemic for which an effective cure, either in the form of a drug or vaccine, has yet to be discovered. In the few brief months that the world has known Covid-19, there has been an unprecedented volume of papers published related to this disease, either in a bid to find solutions, or to discuss applied or related aspects. Data from Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science, and Elsevier's Scopus, which do not index preprints, were assessed. Our estimates indicate that 23,634 unique documents, 9960 of which were in common to both databases, were published between January 1 and June 30, 2020. Publications include research articles, letters, editorials, notes and reviews. As one example, amongst the 21,542 documents in Scopus, 47.6% were research articles, 22.4% were letters, and the rest were reviews, editorials, notes and other. Based on both databases, the top three countries, ranked by volume of published papers, are the USA, China, and Italy while BMJ, Journal of Medical Virology and The Lancet published the largest number of Covid-19-related papers. This paper provides one snapshot of how the publishing landscape has evolved in the first six months of 2020 in response to this pandemic and discusses the risks associated with the speed of publications.

Perils of Precipitate Publication: Fraudulent and Substandard COVID-19 Research.

The COVID-19 pandemic has created an environment highly conducive to substandard and fraudulent research. The incentives and temptations for the unethical are substantial. The articles published during 2020 in The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine that were based on spurious datasets, allegedly hosted by a cloud-based health care analytics platform, are deeply confronting for research integrity. They illustrate the perils of precipitate publication, inadequate peer-reviewing and co-authorship without proper assumption of responsibility. A period of crisis such as that in existence during the COVID-19 pandemic calls for high-quality research that is robustly evaluated. It is not a time for panic to propel premature publication or for relaxation in scholarly standards. Any other approach will replicate errors of the past and result in illusory research breakthroughs to global detriment.

An "alarming" and "exceptionally high" rate of COVID-19 retractions?

More than 20 papers about COVID-19 have been retracted at the time of this writing. It is premature, however, to conclude that such work is being retracted at higher rates than the rest of the literature.

An alarming retraction rate for scientific publications on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).

The ongoing Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic has triggered a flurry of associated research publications, numbering to ~137 papers a day since February 2020. This rate of publication appears to be exceptionally high, when compared to research papers published on other similar topics. Searches of COVID-19-associated publications on PubMed and Retraction Watch Database indicate that the retraction record appearance rate for COVID-19-related research is also exceptionally high compared to other related research topics in viral epidemics/pandemics and surpasses the basal level of about 4 in 10,000 papers. This finding serves as a reminder and caution against any lapses in the standard of work, peer review, and publication of COVID-19-related research.