Rapid publication during crises: Analyzing retractions during the Covid-19 pandemic

Q3 Medicine

Ethics, Medicine and Public Health Pub Date : 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1016/j.jemep.2025.101136

E.A. Toraih , M. ElWazir , R.M. Elshazli , M.H. Hussein , M.S. Fawzy , S.M. Elroukh

{"title":"Rapid publication during crises: Analyzing retractions during the Covid-19 pandemic","authors":"E.A. Toraih , M. ElWazir , R.M. Elshazli , M.H. Hussein , M.S. Fawzy , S.M. Elroukh","doi":"10.1016/j.jemep.2025.101136","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The Covid-19 pandemic triggered a surge in scientific publications, accompanied by an increase in retractions and related corrective actions. This study systematically reviews retracted, withdrawn, or corrected Covid-19-related articles from the first wave and explores their causes and impacts.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We searched Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, Retraction Watch, and MedRxiv/BioRxiv for Covid-19-related articles retracted, withdrawn, or marked with an expression of concern between December 2019 and June 2020. Article characteristics, retraction authorities, and reasons were extracted and categorized using a structured framework based on prior literature and investigator consensus.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Twenty-eight articles met the inclusion criteria: 23 were fully retracted (or removed if preprints), three were temporarily retracted, and two bore expressions of concern. The United States and China were the most common countries of first author affiliation, and 32% of the articles were preprints. The mean duration online before corrective action was 20 days. Collectively, these articles accrued over 1,900 citations and were referenced in major policy documents, including those from the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control, even after retraction. The most frequent reasons for retraction or correction included questionable methodology, data integrity concerns, and misleading interpretation.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Rapid publishing during health crises poses significant challenges, including risks associated with preprints, delayed corrective actions, and continued citation of retracted work. Rigorous peer review, transparent reporting, and adherence to ethical standards are essential to maintain scientific integrity during emergencies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":37707,"journal":{"name":"Ethics, Medicine and Public Health","volume":"33 ","pages":"Article 101136"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics, Medicine and Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352552525000957","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The Covid-19 pandemic triggered a surge in scientific publications, accompanied by an increase in retractions and related corrective actions. This study systematically reviews retracted, withdrawn, or corrected Covid-19-related articles from the first wave and explores their causes and impacts.

Methods

We searched Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, Retraction Watch, and MedRxiv/BioRxiv for Covid-19-related articles retracted, withdrawn, or marked with an expression of concern between December 2019 and June 2020. Article characteristics, retraction authorities, and reasons were extracted and categorized using a structured framework based on prior literature and investigator consensus.

Results

Twenty-eight articles met the inclusion criteria: 23 were fully retracted (or removed if preprints), three were temporarily retracted, and two bore expressions of concern. The United States and China were the most common countries of first author affiliation, and 32% of the articles were preprints. The mean duration online before corrective action was 20 days. Collectively, these articles accrued over 1,900 citations and were referenced in major policy documents, including those from the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control, even after retraction. The most frequent reasons for retraction or correction included questionable methodology, data integrity concerns, and misleading interpretation.

Conclusions

Rapid publishing during health crises poses significant challenges, including risks associated with preprints, delayed corrective actions, and continued citation of retracted work. Rigorous peer review, transparent reporting, and adherence to ethical standards are essential to maintain scientific integrity during emergencies.

查看原文本刊更多论文

危机期间的快速发表：分析Covid-19大流行期间的撤稿

2019冠状病毒病大流行引发了科学出版物的激增，同时撤稿和相关纠正措施也有所增加。本研究系统回顾了第一波被撤回、撤回或更正的新冠肺炎相关文章，并探讨了其原因和影响。方法我们检索Web of Science、PubMed、Scopus、Science Direct、Retraction Watch和MedRxiv/BioRxiv，检索2019年12月至2020年6月期间被撤回、撤回或标记有关注的covid -19相关文章。文章特征、撤回机构和原因被提取出来，并使用基于先前文献和研究者共识的结构化框架进行分类。结果28篇文章符合纳入标准：完全撤稿23篇（预印本删除），暂时撤稿3篇，表达关注2篇。美国和中国是第一作者归属最常见的国家，32%的文章是预印本。纠正措施前的平均在线时间为20天。这些文章总共被引用了1 900多次，并在主要政策文件中被引用，包括世界卫生组织和疾病控制中心的文件，即使在撤回之后也是如此。最常见的撤回或更正原因包括方法论问题、数据完整性问题和误导性解释。在健康危机期间快速出版带来了重大挑战，包括与预印本相关的风险，延迟纠正措施，以及撤回工作的持续引用。严格的同行评议、透明的报告和遵守道德标准对于在紧急情况下保持科学诚信至关重要。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Ethics, Medicine and Public Health Medicine-Health Policy

CiteScore

2.20

自引率

0.00%

发文量

107

审稿时长

42 days

期刊介绍： This review aims to compare approaches to medical ethics and bioethics in two forms, Anglo-Saxon (Ethics, Medicine and Public Health) and French (Ethique, Médecine et Politiques Publiques). Thus, in their native languages, the authors will present research on the legitimacy of the practice and appreciation of the consequences of acts towards patients as compared to the limits acceptable by the community, as illustrated by the democratic debate.