PREreviews of “Downstream retraction of preprinted research in the life and medical sciences” | PREreview

Skip to preprint details Skip to PREreviews

Downstream retraction of preprinted research in the life and medical sciences

by Michele Avissar-Whiting

Posted: February 17, 2022
Server: MetaArXiv
DOI: 10.31222/osf.io/xdekq

Abstract

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.

Read the preprint

1 Rapid PREreview

by Martyn Rittman

Where can I fill out a Rapid PREreview?

We’ve recently replaced Rapid PREreviews with Structured PREreviews.

You can write a Structured PREreview now.

We’ll be updating older Rapid PREreviews like these soon.

Aggregated Rapid PREreviews
Question	Yes	Unsure	N/A	No
Are the findings novel?	100%	0%	0%	0%
Are the results likely to lead to future research?	100%	0%	0%	0%
Is sufficient detail provided to allow reproduction of the study?	100%	0%	0%	0%
Are the methods and statistics appropriate for the analysis?	100%	0%	0%	0%
Are the principal conclusions supported by the data and analysis?	100%	0%	0%	0%
Does the manuscript discuss limitations?	0%	0%	0%	100%
Have the authors adequately discussed ethical concerns?	0%	0%	100%	0%
Does the manuscript include new data?	100%	0%	0%	0%
Are the data used in the manuscript available?	0%	100%	0%	0%
Is the code used in the manuscript available?	0%	0%	0%	100%
Would you recommend this manuscript to others?	100%	0%	0%	0%
Do you recommend this manuscript for peer review?	100%	0%	0%	0%

1 PREreview

Write a PREreview

PREreview by Martyn Rittman

Authored by Martyn Rittman

This is a timely and novel study that discusses a topic of importance to the community. Although limited in scope to the life sciences, its conclusions are likely to be more broadly applicable and of interest to preprint servers, publishers, and scholarly infrastructure organisations. The main…

Read the PREreview by Martyn Rittman