Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-rvxtl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-18T19:40:22.279Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Retractions of COVID-19-related Research Publications During and After the Pandemic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2025

Ellie Rose Mattoon ,
Arturo Casadevall  and
Ferric C. Fang Open the ORCID record for Ferric C. Fang [Opens in a new window]
Ellie Rose Mattoon
Affiliation:
Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
Arturo Casadevall
Affiliation:
Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
Ferric C. Fang*
Affiliation:
Departments of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology and Microbiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA
*
Corresponding author: Ferric C. Fang; [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Retracted research publications reached an all-time high in 2023, and COVID-19 publications may have higher retraction rates than other publications. To better understand the impact of COVID-19 on the research literature, we analyzed 244 retracted publications related to COVID-19 in the PubMed database and the reasons for their retraction. Peer-review manipulation (18.4%) and error (20.9%) were the most common reasons for retraction, with time to retraction occurring far more quickly than in the past (13.2 mos, compared with 32.9 mos in a 2012 study). Publications focused on controversial topics were retracted rapidly (mean time to retraction 10.8 mos) but continued to receive media attention, suggesting that retraction alone may be insufficient to prevent the spread of scientific misinformation. More than half of the retractions resulted from problems that could have been detected prior to publication, including compromise of the peer review process, plagiarism, authorship issues, lack of ethics approvals, or journal errors, suggesting that more robust screening and peer review by journals can help to mitigate the recent rise in retractions.

Keywords

retractionsmisconductpeer reviewCOVID-19research integrity
Type
Symposium
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , First View , pp. 1 - 7
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Van Noorden, Ρ.., “More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 - a new record,” Nature 624, no. 7992 (2023): 479–481.Google ScholarPubMed
Id. Google Scholar
Freijedo-Farinas, F. et al., “Biomedical retractions due to misconduct in Europe: characterization and trends in the last 20 years,” Scientometrics 129, no. 5 (2024): 2867–2882.Google Scholar
Petrou, C., “Making sense of retractions and tackling research misconduct,” Scholarly Kitchen, April 18, 2024, https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2024/04/18/guest-post-making-sense-of-retractions-and-tackling-research-misconduct/ (last visited May 30, 2024).Google Scholar
Fortunato, S. et al., “Science of science,” Science 359, no. 6379 (2018): eaao0185.Google ScholarPubMed
Bolland, M.J., Grey, A., and Avenell, A., “Citation of retracted publications: A challenging problem,” Accountability in Research 29, no. 1 (2022): 18–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Suelzer, E.M. et al., “Assessment of citations of the retracted article by Wakefield et al with fraudulent claims of an association between vaccination and autism,” JAMA Network Open 2, no. 11 (2019): e1915552.Google ScholarPubMed
Fang, F.C., Steen, R.G., and Casadevall, A., “Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 109, no. 42 (2012): 17028–17033.Google ScholarPubMed
Aliukonis, V., Poškutė, M., and Gefenas, E., “Perish or publish dilemma: challenges to responsible authorship,” Medicina (Kaunas) 56, no. 3 (2020): 123.Google ScholarPubMed
Linacre, S., “From subversive to the new normal: 25 years of open access,” Digital Science, October 26, 2023, https://www.digital-science.com/blog/2023/10/from-subversive-to-the-new-normal-25-years-of-open-access/ (last visited May 30, 2024).Google Scholar
LaRiviére, V., Haustein, S., and Mongeon, P., “The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era,” PLoS One 10, no. 6 (2015): e0127502.Google ScholarPubMed
Stigbrand, T., “The rapidly changing landscape of scientific publishing,” Tumour Biology 39, no. 1 (2017): 1010428316687894.Google ScholarPubMed
Yeo-Teh, N.S.L. and Tang, B.L., “Post-publication peer review with an intention to uncover data/result irregularities and potential research misconduct in scientific research: Vigilantism or volunteerism?” Science and Engineering Ethics 29, no. 4 (2023): 24.Google ScholarPubMed
Knoepfler, P., “Reviewing post-publication peer review,” Trends in Genetics 31, no. 5 (2015): 221–223.Google ScholarPubMed
Squazzoni, F. et al., “Gender gap in journal submissions and peer review during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. A study on 2329 Elsevier journals,” PLoS One 16, no. 10 (2021): e0257919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sloane, P.D. and Zimmerman, S., “The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on scientific publishing,” Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 22, no. 3 (2021): 484–488.Google ScholarPubMed
Aviv-Reuven, S. and Rosenfeld, A., “Publication patterns’ changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal and short-term scientometric analysis,” Scientometrics 126, no. 8 (2021): 6761–6784.Google Scholar
Stroebe, W. et al., “Politicization of COVID-19 health-protective behaviors in the United States: Longitudinal and cross-national evidence,” PLoS ONE 16, no. 10 (2021): e0256740.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tuccori, M. et al., “The Impact of the COVID-19 ‘Infodemic’ on Drug-Utilization Behaviors: Implications for Pharmacovigilance,” Drug Safety 43, no. 8 (2020): 699–709.Google ScholarPubMed
Furuse, Y., “Characteristics of retracted research papers before and during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Frontiers in Medicine (Lausanne) 10 (2023): 1288014.Google ScholarPubMed
Yeo-Teh, N.S.L. and Tang, B.L., “An alarming retraction rate for scientific publications on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19),” Accountability in Research 28, no. 1 (2021): 47–53; T. Cheng, G. Zhang and J. Li, “Retractions relevant to COVID-19: does the retraction rate jump during the pandemic?” Revista Española de Enfermedades Digestivas 115, no. 11 (2023): 660–661.Google ScholarPubMed
Zyoud, S.H., “Global landscape of COVID-19 research: a visualization analysis of randomized clinical trials,” Clinical and Experimental Medicine 24, no. 1 (2024): 14.Google ScholarPubMed
Van Noorden, supra note 1.Google Scholar
Peterson, C.J., et al., “An analysis of retracted COVID-19 articles published by one medical publisher with multiple journals,” Proceedings (Baylor University Medical Center) 37, no. 3 (2024): 459–464.Google ScholarPubMed
Fang, supra note 8.Google Scholar
Id. Google Scholar
Id. Google Scholar
Id. Google Scholar
Squazzoni, supra note 15.Google Scholar
Aviv-Reuven, supra note 17.Google Scholar
Jung, R.G. et al., “Methodological quality of COVID-19 clinical research,” Nature Communications 12, no. 1 (2021): 943.Google ScholarPubMed
Gai, N. et al., “General medical publications during COVID-19 show increased dissemination despite lower validation,” PLoS ONE 16, no. 2 (2021): e0246427.Google ScholarPubMed
Mehra, M.R. et al., “RETRACTED: Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19,” New England Journal of Medicine 382, no. 26 (2020): e102.Google ScholarPubMed
Mehra, M.R. et al., “RETRACTED: Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis,” Lancet (2020): S0140-6736(20)31180-6.Google ScholarPubMed
Haunschild, R. and Bornmann, L., “Can tweets be used to detect problems early with scientific papers? A case study of three retracted COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 papers,” Scientometrics 126, no. 6 (2021): 5181–5199.Google ScholarPubMed
“WHO resumes coronavirus trial on hydroxychloroquine after examining safety issues,” CNBC, June 3, 2020, https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/03/world-health-organization-resumes-coronavirus-trial-on-malaria-drug-hydroxychloroquine-after-safety-concerns.html (accessed June 5, 2024).Google Scholar
Taros, T. et al., “Retracted Covid-19 articles: significantly more cited than other articles within their journal of origin,” Scientometrics 128, no. 5 (2023): 2935–2943.Google ScholarPubMed
Walach, H., Klement, R.J., and Aukema, W., “RETRACTED: The safety of COVID-19 vaccinations-We should rethink the policy,” Vaccines (Basel) 9, no. 7 (2021): 693.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wadman, M., “Scientists quit journal board, protesting ‘grossly irresponsible’ study claiming COVID-19 vaccines kill,” Science (2021): https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abk2629.Google Scholar
Vaccines Editorial Office, “Retraction: Walach et al. The safety of COVID-19 vaccinations-We should rethink the policy, Vaccines 2021, 9, 693,” Vaccines (Basel) 9, no. 7 (2021): 729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wadman, supra note 8.Google Scholar
Walach, H., et al., “The safety of COVID-19 vaccinations— Should we rethink the policy?” Science, Public Health Policy & the Law, August 1, 2021, https://publichealthpolicyjournal.com/the-safety-of-covid-19-vaccinations-should-we-rethink-the-policy/ (last visited June 12, 2024).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, A., “Authors blame a ‘ghoul’ for retraction of paper claiming vaccines lead to health and behavioral issues,” Retraction Watch, August 11, 2021, https://retractionwatch.com/2021/08/11/authors-blame-a-ghoul-for-retraction-of-paper-claiming-vaccines-lead-to-health-and-behavioral-issues/ (last visited July 16, 2024).Google Scholar
Walach, H., et al., “Experimental assessment of carbon dioxide content in inhaled air with or without face masks in healthy children: A randomized clinical trial,” JAMA Pediatrics (2021): e212659.Google ScholarPubMed
Christakis, D. and Fontanarosa, P.B., “NOTICE OF RETRACTION. Walach H, et al. Experimental assessment of carbon dioxide content in inhaled air with or without face masks in healthy children: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatr. Published online June 30, 2021,” JAMA Pediatrics 175, no. 9 (2021): e213252.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walach, H.. et al., “Carbon dioxide rises beyond acceptable safety levels in children under nose and mouth covering: Results of an experimental measurement study in healthy children,” Environmental Research 212, Pt. D (2022): 113564.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, A., et al., “Retraction to: Meta-analysis of randomized trials of ivermectin to treat SARS-CoV-2 infection,” Open Forum Infectious Diseases 9, no. 3 (2022): ofac056.Google ScholarPubMed
Elgazzar, A., et al., “Efficacy and Safety of Ivermectin for Treatment and prophylaxis of COVID-19 Pandemic,” Research Square preprint, November 16, 2020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oransky, I., “Ivermectin meta-analysis to be retracted, revised, say authors. Retraction Watch,” August 10, 2021, https://retractionwatch.com/2021/08/10/ivermectin-meta-analysis-to-be-retracted-revised-say-authors/ (last visited June 5, 2024).Google Scholar
Fang, supra note 8.Google Scholar
Van Noorden, supra note 1.Google Scholar
Soltani, P. and Patini, R., “Retracted COVID-19 articles: a side-effect of the hot race to publication,” Scientometrics 125, no. 1 (2020): 819–822.Google ScholarPubMed
Capodici, A. et al., “Biased, wrong and counterfeited evidences published during the COVID-19 pandemic, a systematic review of retracted COVID-19 papers,” Quality & Quantity 52 (2022): 1–33.Google Scholar
Anderson, C., Nugent, K., and Peterson, C., “Academic journal retractions and the COVID-19 Pandemic,” Journal of Primary Care & Community Health 12 (2021): 21501327211015590; S.R. Shimray, “Research done wrong: A comprehensive investigation of retracted publications in COVID-19,” Accountability in Research 30, no. 7 (2023): 393–406.Google Scholar
Journal of Environmental & Public Health, “RETRACTED: public view of public health emergencies based on artificial intelligence data,” Journal of Environmental & Public Health (2023): 9756316.Google Scholar
Frampton, G., Woods, L. and Scott, D.A., “Inconsistent and incomplete retraction of published research: A cross-sectional study on Covid-19 retractions and recommendations to mitigate risks for research, policy and practice,” PLoS ONE 16, no. 10 (2021): e0258935.Google ScholarPubMed
Id. Google Scholar
Id. Google Scholar
Arrizabalaga, O., et al., “Open Access of COVID-19-related publications in the first quarter of 2020: a preliminary study based in PubMed,” Faculty of 1000 Research 9 (2020): 649.Google ScholarPubMed
Huang, C.K. et al., “Open access research outputs receive more diverse citations,” Scientometrics 129, no. 2 (2024): 825–845.Google Scholar
Clark, J. and Smith, R., “Firm action needed on predatory journals,” BMJ 350 (2015): h210.Google ScholarPubMed
Id. Google Scholar
Butler, D., “Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing,” Nature 495, no. 7442 (2013): 433–435.Google ScholarPubMed
Kanalregisteret (The Channel Register: Norwegian Register for Cientific Journals, Series and Publishers) “Hindawi Limited,” Norwegian Directorate for Higher Education and Skills, https://kanalregister.hkdir.no/publiseringskanaler/KanalForlagInfo.action?id=18220&request_locale=en (last visited June 6, 2024).Google Scholar
Kincaid, E., “Wiley to stop using ‘Hindawi’ name amid $18 million revenue decline,” Retraction Watch, December 6, 2023, https://retractionwatch.com/2023/12/06/wiley-to-stop-using-hindawi-name-amid-18-million-revenue-decline/ (accessed June 6, 2024).Google Scholar
Collaborative Working Group from the conference “Keeping the Pool Clean: Prevention and Management of Misconduct Related Retractions,” “RePAIR consensus guidelines: Responsibilities of Publishers, Agencies, Institutions, and Researchers in protecting the integrity of the research record,” Research Integrity & Peer Review 3 (2018): 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, C.L., Casadevall, A., and Jackson, S., “Figure errors, sloppy science, and fraud: Keeping eyes on your data,” Journal of Clinical Investigation 129, no. 5 (2019): 1805–1807.Google ScholarPubMed
Fang, supra note 8.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Mattoon et al. supplementary material

Mattoon et al. supplementary material
Download Mattoon et al. supplementary material(File)
File 27.5 KB