在互联网研究共享平台上提供被撤回的 Covid-19 论文

Renan MVR Almeida, A. Fontes-Pereira
{"title":"在互联网研究共享平台上提供被撤回的 Covid-19 论文","authors":"Renan MVR Almeida, A. Fontes-Pereira","doi":"10.56294/mw202454","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: This paper investigated the availability of retracted/with Expression of Concern Covid-19 papers on research-sharing platforms.Methods: From the “Retraction Watch” (RW) list of Covid-19 retracted/with Expressions of Concern (EoC) papers, all articles pertaining to Covid-19 treatment were selected. After their identification, paper titles and authors were searched on the platforms: Research Gate and Academia (Academia.com). In case a retracted or EoC paper was identified as available, the presence of a warning note was ascertained (either as an attached note or as a direct warning on the paper). The citations that these papers received were then identified on the Google Scholar platform, and classified as prior to retraction date/posterior to retraction date.Results: At first, a total of 44 papers were selected from the RW list. Out of these, 18 full papers could be obtained in the analyzed platforms (15 retractions, 3 EoCs). Fourteen of the identified papers concerned dubious, ineffective or “alternative” treatments. The most common countries of origin were India and Egypt. The median number of Google Scholar post-retraction citations was 29.5 and the mean 42.9 (range: 0 - 128).Conclusion: Research-sharing platforms should implement mechanisms to prevent non reliable research to be made available in them.","PeriodicalId":510092,"journal":{"name":"Seminars in Medical Writing and Education","volume":"115 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Availability of retracted Covid-19 papers on Internet research-sharing platforms\",\"authors\":\"Renan MVR Almeida, A. Fontes-Pereira\",\"doi\":\"10.56294/mw202454\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: This paper investigated the availability of retracted/with Expression of Concern Covid-19 papers on research-sharing platforms.Methods: From the “Retraction Watch” (RW) list of Covid-19 retracted/with Expressions of Concern (EoC) papers, all articles pertaining to Covid-19 treatment were selected. After their identification, paper titles and authors were searched on the platforms: Research Gate and Academia (Academia.com). In case a retracted or EoC paper was identified as available, the presence of a warning note was ascertained (either as an attached note or as a direct warning on the paper). The citations that these papers received were then identified on the Google Scholar platform, and classified as prior to retraction date/posterior to retraction date.Results: At first, a total of 44 papers were selected from the RW list. Out of these, 18 full papers could be obtained in the analyzed platforms (15 retractions, 3 EoCs). Fourteen of the identified papers concerned dubious, ineffective or “alternative” treatments. The most common countries of origin were India and Egypt. The median number of Google Scholar post-retraction citations was 29.5 and the mean 42.9 (range: 0 - 128).Conclusion: Research-sharing platforms should implement mechanisms to prevent non reliable research to be made available in them.\",\"PeriodicalId\":510092,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Seminars in Medical Writing and Education\",\"volume\":\"115 12\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Seminars in Medical Writing and Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.56294/mw202454\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Seminars in Medical Writing and Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56294/mw202454","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:本文调查了研究共享平台上被撤回/附有关注表达的Covid-19论文的可用性:方法:从 "撤稿观察"(RW)的Covid-19撤稿/关注声明(EoC)论文列表中选取了所有与Covid-19治疗相关的文章。确定后,在以下平台上搜索论文标题和作者:Research Gate 和 Academia (Academia.com)。如果发现有被撤回或 EoC 的论文,则确定是否存在警告说明(作为附件说明或作为论文上的直接警告)。然后在谷歌学术平台上确定这些论文的引用情况,并将其归类为撤稿日期之前/撤稿日期之后:首先,我们从撤回论文列表中选出了 44 篇论文。在这些论文中,有 18 篇论文的全文可以在分析的平台上找到(15 篇撤稿论文,3 篇 EoCs)。其中 14 篇论文涉及可疑、无效或 "替代 "疗法。最常见的论文来源国是印度和埃及。撤稿后谷歌学术引用次数的中位数为 29.5 次,平均数为 42.9 次(范围:0 - 128):研究共享平台应实施相关机制,防止非可靠的研究成果在平台上发布。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Availability of retracted Covid-19 papers on Internet research-sharing platforms
Introduction: This paper investigated the availability of retracted/with Expression of Concern Covid-19 papers on research-sharing platforms.Methods: From the “Retraction Watch” (RW) list of Covid-19 retracted/with Expressions of Concern (EoC) papers, all articles pertaining to Covid-19 treatment were selected. After their identification, paper titles and authors were searched on the platforms: Research Gate and Academia (Academia.com). In case a retracted or EoC paper was identified as available, the presence of a warning note was ascertained (either as an attached note or as a direct warning on the paper). The citations that these papers received were then identified on the Google Scholar platform, and classified as prior to retraction date/posterior to retraction date.Results: At first, a total of 44 papers were selected from the RW list. Out of these, 18 full papers could be obtained in the analyzed platforms (15 retractions, 3 EoCs). Fourteen of the identified papers concerned dubious, ineffective or “alternative” treatments. The most common countries of origin were India and Egypt. The median number of Google Scholar post-retraction citations was 29.5 and the mean 42.9 (range: 0 - 128).Conclusion: Research-sharing platforms should implement mechanisms to prevent non reliable research to be made available in them.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信