RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Comparative analysis of retracted pre-print and peer-reviewed articles on COVID-19
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.07.12.22277529
DO 10.1101/2022.07.12.22277529
A1 Sra, Manraj Singh
A1 Arora, Mehak
A1 Mazumder, Archisman
A1 Goyal, Ritik Mahaveer
A1 Parameswaran, Giridara G
A1 Meena, Jitendra Kumar
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/07/12/2022.07.12.22277529.abstract
AB Introduction Due to the accelerated pace and quantum of scientific publication during the COVID-19 pandemic, a large number of articles on COVID-19 have been retracted. Pre-prints though not peer-reviewed offer the advantage of rapid dissemination of new findings. In this study, we aim to systematically compare the article characteristics, time to retraction, social media attention, citations, and reasons for retraction between retracted pre-print and peer-reviewed articles on COVID-19.Methods We utilized the Retraction Watch database to identify retracted articles on COVID-19 published from 1st January 2020 to 10th March 2022. The articles were reviewed and metadata such as article characteristics (type, category), time to retraction, reasons for retraction, and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) and citation count were collected.Results We identified 40 retracted pre-prints and 143 retracted peer-reviewed articles. The median (IQR) retraction time for pre-print and peer-reviewed articles was 29 (10-81.5) days and 139 (63-202) days (p = 0.0001). Pre-prints and peer-reviewed article had median (IQR) AAS of 26.5 (4-1155) and 8 (1-38.5), respectively (p = 0.0082). The median (IQR) citation count for pre-prints and peer-reviewed articles was 3 (0-14) and 3 (0-17), respectively (p = 0.5633). The AAS and citation counts were correlated for both pre-prints (r = 0.5200, p = 0.0006) and peer-reviewed articles(r = 0.5909, p = 0.0001). The commonest reason for retraction for pre-prints and peer-reviewed articles concerns about data and results.Conclusion The increased adoption of pre-prints results in faster identification of erroneous articles compared to the traditional peer-review process.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study did not receive any fundingAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesData used in this is available subject to a standard data use agreement from The Centre for Scientific Integrity, the parent non-profit organization of Retraction Watch. http://retractiondatabase.org/RetractionSearch.aspx?