Expression Of Concern Research Articles

The problem with permanent expressions of concern: Perpetual doubt

The<b> </b>expression of concern (EoC) evolved in the neoliberal corrective culture of science to represent an “alert system” for potential problems with papers that might arise at the post-publication stage. One of the problems with EoCs is that they may take months or even years to resolve, while some EoCs remain as such forever. Fairly recently, Elsevier, a publishing giant, introduced a new form of EoCs, or rather, the plain EoC morphed into two types, the temporary EoC, and the permanent EoC. The permanent EoC leaves that paper in a permanent state of unknown use and unclear reliability.

The theoretical crisis of trust in science is becoming science’s practical crisis: Perspective through the eyes of citations

The claimed crisis in science has many origins that, when observed uniquely, might got give the impression of a widespread problem. However, when their integrated networks are appreciated, the crisis then begins to take on a form and life of its own. This brief note looks at the basis for a potential crisis in any field of research through the prism of citations, specifically the citation of articles that may become invalidated through retraction, or whose integrity may be weakened through an associated expression of concern (EoC). Fields of research, or bodies of literature of individual researchers, that are weakened by an excessive volume of retractions or EoCs face intellectual and scientific implosion.

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.

Procrastination and inconsistency: expressions of concern for publications with compromised integrity

Expressions of concern (EoC) can reduce the adverse effects of unreliable publications by alerting readers to concerns about publication integrity while assessment is undertaken. We investigated the use of EoC for 463 publications by two research groups for which we notified concerns about publication integrity to 142 journals and 44 publishers between March 2013 and February 2020. By December 2021, 95 papers had had an EoC, and 83 were retracted without an EoC. Median times from notification of concerns to EoC (10.4mo) or retraction without EoC (13.1mo) were similar. Among the 95 EoCs, 29 (30.5%) were followed by retraction after a median of 5.4mo, none was lifted, and 66 (69.5%) remained in place after a median of 18.1mo. Publishers with >10 notified publications issued EoCs for 0-81.8% of papers: for several publishers the proportions of notified papers for which EoCs were issued varied considerably between the 2 research groups. EoCs were issued for >30% of notified publications of randomized clinical trials and letters to the editor, and <20% of other types of research. These results demonstrate inconsistent application of EoCs between and within publishers, and prolonged times to issue and resolve EoCs.

Bibliometric and Altmetric Analysis of Retracted Articles on COVID-19.

BackgroundWith greater use of social media platforms for promotions of research articles, retracted articles tend to receive approximately the same attention. We systematically analyzed retracted articles from retractionwatch.com to look at the Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS) garnered over a period of time in order to highlight the role of social media and other platforms in advertising retracted articles and its effect on the spread of misinformation.MethodsRetractionwatch.com was searched for coronavirus disease 2019 related retracted papers on November 6th, 2021. Articles were excluded based on lack of digital object identifier (DOI), if they were preprint articles, absent AAS, and incomplete AAS of pre retraction, post retraction, or both scores.ResultsA total of 196 articles were found on the Retraction Watch website of which 189 were retracted papers and 7 were expression of concern (EOC). We then identified 175 articles after excluding those that did not have a DOI and 30 preprint articles were also excluded giving 145 articles. Further exclusion of articles with absent AAS and incomplete AAS resulted in a total of 22 articles.ConclusionRetracted articles receive significant online attention. Twitter and Mendeley were the most popular medium for publicizing retracted articles, therefore more focus should be given by journals and their Twitter accounts to discredit all their retracted articles. Preprints should be reconsidered as a whole by journals due to the huge risk they carry in disseminating false information.

An extended state of uncertainty: A snap-shot of expressions of concern in neuroscience

An expression of concern (EoC) alerts readers to new considerations or concerns about a paper, usually at the post-publication stage. Authors and readers are left in a state of uncertainty as they await a resolution. This uncertainty might create a state of stress or anxiety for some authors. The paper's findings may be either validated and confirmed, resolving the EoC, or the paper's validity or loss of integrity is confirmed, leading to an erratum or retraction. Academics wanting to cite a paper to which an EoC is associated might decide not to cite it. If an EoC is reversed, i.e., if the post-publication findings annul the initial concerns, then the authors and journal may suffer a “loss” of citations. Conversely, if concerns are confirmed post-publication, and the EoC develops into a retraction, then any citations that were rewarded while the paper was in a state of uncertainty were rewarded unfairly. In such a case, both author- and journal-based metrics should be adjusted. Using the Retraction Watch database until April 20, 2021, we assessed 20 cases of EoCs in the neuroscience literature to appreciate how EoCs have been processed. After excluding one author-issued EoC, from 19 editor-issued EoCs, 10 were resolved in an average of 220 days while nine remain unresolved. In this article, we suggest the need to make the processes associated with an EoC more visible and transparent to the academic community, allowing editors to make the correct decisions regarding its resolution.

Notices and Policies for Retractions, Expressions of Concern, Errata and Corrigenda: Their Importance, Content, and Context.

A retraction notice is an essential scientific historical document because it should outline the reason(s) why a scientific manuscript was retracted, culpability (if any) and any other factors that have given reason for the authors, editors, or publisher, to remove a piece of the literature from science's history books. Unlike an expression of concern (EoC), erratum or corrigendum, a retraction will usually result in a rudimentary vestige of the work. Thus, any retraction notice that does not fully indicate a set of elements related to the reason and background for the retraction serves as a poor historical document. Moreover, poorly or incompletely worded retraction notices in fact do not serve their intended purpose, i.e., to hold all parties accountable, and to inform the scientific and wider public of the problem and reason for the paper's demise. This paper takes a look at the definitions and the policies of clauses for retractions, EoCs, errata and corrigenda in place by 15 leading science, technology and medicine (STM) publishers and four publishing-related bodies that we believe have the greatest influence on the current fields of science, technology and medicine. The primary purpose was to assess whether there is a consistency among these entities and publishers. Using an arbitrary 5-scale classification system, and evaluating the different categories of policies separately, we discovered that in almost all cases (88.9%), the wording used to define these four categories of polices differs from that of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which is generally considered to be the guiding set of definitions in science publishing. In addition, as much as 61% deviation in policies (wording and meaning), relative to COPE guidelines, was discovered. When considering the average pooled deviation across all categories of policies, we discovered that there was either no deviation or a small deviation, only in the wording, in the definition of policies when compared to the COPE guidelines in 1 out of 3 ethical bodies, and in 40% (6 out of 15) STM publishers. Moderate deviation from the COPE guidelines was detected in 26.7% of STM publishers and one ethical body but a large deviation in one ethical body and 20% of STM publishers was observed. Two STM publishers (13.3%) did not report any information about these policies. Even though in practice, editors and publishers may deviate from these written definitions when dealing with case-by-case issues, we believe that it is essential, to serve as a consistent guide for authors and editors, that the wording be standardized across these entities. COPE and these entities also have the responsibility of making it clear that these definitions are merely suggestions and that their application may be subjected to subjective interpretation and application.