{"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}
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.