Downstream retraction of preprinted research in the life and medical sciences

  1. Michele Avissar-Whiting

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

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.

Article activity feed

  1. PREreview

    This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/6325900.

    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 conclusion that more work is needed to communicate retractions across different versions of a manuscript is valid and well-supported by the data. 

    The discovery that all retractions are in OA journals is fascinating and, to me, unexpected. As noted, the sample size is small, and it would be curious to know if it holds up across a broader range of subject areas and preprint servers. Is it because authors who deposit preprints have a tendency to publish in OA, that OA journals have more readers and therefore more scrutiny, or a weakness in OA review procedures?

    Some specific comments: 

    - The reason for more linked preprints from bioRxiv and medRxiv could also be stricter screening procedures for those preprint servers.

    - ASAPbio focuses on life sciences and there isn't such a coordinated effort to promote preprints and set standards in other disciplines, although COPE has put out a discussion document (https://publicationethics.org/resources/discussion-documents/preprints). 

    - The article would benefit from an expanded discussion of possible limitations and suggestions for follow-up studies. 

  2. Version published to 10.31222/osf.io/xdekq on OSF Preprints