Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

Downstream retraction of preprinted research in the life and medical sciences

View through CrossRef
Retractions have been on the rise in the life and clinical sciences in the last decade, likely due to both broader accessibility of published scientific research and increased vigilance on the part of publishers. In this same period, there has been a greater than ten-fold increase in the posting of preprints by researchers in these fields. While this development has significantly accelerated the rate of research dissemination and has benefited early-career researchers eager to show productivity, it has also introduced challenges with respect to provenance tracking, version linking, and, ultimately, back-propagation of events such as corrigenda, expressions of concern, and retractions that occur on the journal-published version. The aim of this study was to understand the extent of this problem among preprint servers that routinely link their preprints to the corollary versions published in journals. To present a snapshot of the current state of downstream retractions of articles preprinted in three large preprint servers (Research Square, bioRxiv, and medRxiv), the DOIs of the journal-published versions linked to preprints were matched to entries in the Retraction Watch database. A total of 30 retractions were identified, representing only 0.01% of all content posted on these servers. Of these, 11 retractions were clearly noted by the preprint servers; however, the existence of a preprint was only acknowledged by the retracting journal in one case. The time from publication to retraction averaged 278 days, notably lower than the average for articles overall (839 days). In 70% of cases, retractions downstream of preprints were due – at least in part – to ethical or procedural misconduct. In 63% of cases, the nature of the retraction suggested that the conclusions were no longer reliable. Over time, the lack of propagation of critical information across the publication life cycle will pose a threat to the scholarly record and to scientific integrity. It is incumbent on preprint servers, publishers, and the systems that connect them to address these issues before their scale becomes untenable.
Center for Open Science
Title: Downstream retraction of preprinted research in the life and medical sciences
Description:
Retractions have been on the rise in the life and clinical sciences in the last decade, likely due to both broader accessibility of published scientific research and increased vigilance on the part of publishers.
In this same period, there has been a greater than ten-fold increase in the posting of preprints by researchers in these fields.
While this development has significantly accelerated the rate of research dissemination and has benefited early-career researchers eager to show productivity, it has also introduced challenges with respect to provenance tracking, version linking, and, ultimately, back-propagation of events such as corrigenda, expressions of concern, and retractions that occur on the journal-published version.
The aim of this study was to understand the extent of this problem among preprint servers that routinely link their preprints to the corollary versions published in journals.
To present a snapshot of the current state of downstream retractions of articles preprinted in three large preprint servers (Research Square, bioRxiv, and medRxiv), the DOIs of the journal-published versions linked to preprints were matched to entries in the Retraction Watch database.
A total of 30 retractions were identified, representing only 0.
01% of all content posted on these servers.
Of these, 11 retractions were clearly noted by the preprint servers; however, the existence of a preprint was only acknowledged by the retracting journal in one case.
The time from publication to retraction averaged 278 days, notably lower than the average for articles overall (839 days).
In 70% of cases, retractions downstream of preprints were due – at least in part – to ethical or procedural misconduct.
In 63% of cases, the nature of the retraction suggested that the conclusions were no longer reliable.
Over time, the lack of propagation of critical information across the publication life cycle will pose a threat to the scholarly record and to scientific integrity.
It is incumbent on preprint servers, publishers, and the systems that connect them to address these issues before their scale becomes untenable.

Related Results

Comparative Evaluation of Gingival Displacement by Using Retraction Paste and Retraction Cord- In-Vivo Pilot Study
Comparative Evaluation of Gingival Displacement by Using Retraction Paste and Retraction Cord- In-Vivo Pilot Study
Marginal integrity is one of the important principles of Tooth preparation. To achieve this, a satisfactory gingival displacement procedure is necessary. Aim of this study was to d...
Fresh extension of Vibrio cholerae competence type IV pili predisposes them for motor-independent retraction
Fresh extension of Vibrio cholerae competence type IV pili predisposes them for motor-independent retraction
ABSTRACT Bacteria utilize dynamic appendages called type IV pili (T4P) to interact with their environment and mediate a wide variety of functions...
Retraction of transporting bone segment during Ilizarov bone transport
Retraction of transporting bone segment during Ilizarov bone transport
Abstract Background: Retraction of transporting bone segment (TBS) may occur when the fixator of the TBS is removed prior to full consolidation of the distracted callus, wh...
The Ethics of Retraction
The Ethics of Retraction
This essay examines the ethics of retraction, using the tools of speech act theory. We are fundamentally imperfect beings who make mistakes, as any ethics usable in the actual worl...
COMPARITIVE EVALUATION OF HORIZONTAL GINGIVAL DISPLACMENT USING STAY-PUT RETRACTION CORD AND ASTRINGENT RETRACTION PASTE: AN IN VIVO STUDY
COMPARITIVE EVALUATION OF HORIZONTAL GINGIVAL DISPLACMENT USING STAY-PUT RETRACTION CORD AND ASTRINGENT RETRACTION PASTE: AN IN VIVO STUDY
Introduction: Gingival retraction cord is the most commonly used gingival displacement material however, it causes discomfort and produces damage to the periodontium. Various new g...

Back to Top