Timeliness and content of retraction notices for publications by a single research group

ABSTRACT

Publications of expressions of concern and retractions should be timely, accurate and comprehensive. We as sessed these characteristics for 292 publications by a research group about which we submitted concerns about publication integrity to 77 journals and 29 publishers between March 2013 and February 2020. By October 2020, 115 publications were corrected (3), had expressions of concern (18), or were retracted (94). The median (95% CI) time from submission of concerns to the first journal correction was 22.1 (18.2–26.9) months: this did not diminish by year of submission of concerns, varied between publishers, and was shorter for journals with higher impact factors. Eighty-four publications of original research were retracted. The median (range) proportion of concerns raised with the journal that were mentioned in the ensuing retraction notices was 9.5% (2–49). At least 75% of retraction notices included the suggested content for 7/9, 3/9 and 3/16 items in the Committee for Publication Ethics and Retraction Watch minimum and optimal recommended formats, respectively. Thus, assessment of concerns about publication integrity was delayed and incomplete. Adherence to recommended content of retraction notices was moderate at best. Strategies are needed to improve the efficiency, accuracy and transparency of processes for resolving concerns about publication integrity.

KEYWORDS:

• Publication integrity
• retraction
• expression of concern
• academic publishing

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Contributorship

All authors designed the research. AG and AA collated and coded the data. AG performed the analyses. AG drafted the paper. All authors critically reviewed and improved it. AG is the guarantor for the article. All authors had access to all the data. AG takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Data availability

Study data are either available in the public domain or can be obtained from the lead author upon reasonable request.

Transparency statement

AG affirms that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned have been explained

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed on the publisher’s website.

Additional information

Funding

The study received no specific funding. MB is the recipient of an HRC Clinical Practitioner Fellowship. The Health Services Research Unit is funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates. The authors are independent of the HRC. The HRC had no role in study design, the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, the writing of the article, or the decision to submit it for publication.