Cargando…

Concern noted: a descriptive study of editorial expressions of concern in PubMed and PubMed Central

BACKGROUND: An editorial expression of concern (EEoC) is issued by editors or publishers to draw attention to potential problems in a publication, without itself constituting a retraction or correction. METHODS: We searched PubMed, PubMed Central (PMC), and Google Scholar to identify EEoCs issued fo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vaught, Melissa, Jordan, Diana C., Bastian, Hilda
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5526611/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28758029
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41073-017-0030-2
_version_ 1783252836241375232
author Vaught, Melissa
Jordan, Diana C.
Bastian, Hilda
author_facet Vaught, Melissa
Jordan, Diana C.
Bastian, Hilda
author_sort Vaught, Melissa
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: An editorial expression of concern (EEoC) is issued by editors or publishers to draw attention to potential problems in a publication, without itself constituting a retraction or correction. METHODS: We searched PubMed, PubMed Central (PMC), and Google Scholar to identify EEoCs issued for publications in PubMed and PMC up to 22 August 2016. We also searched the archives of the Retraction Watch blog, some journal and publisher websites, and studies of EEoCs. In addition, we searched for retractions of EEoCs and affected articles in PubMed up to 8 December 2016. We analyzed overall historical trends, as well as reported reasons and subsequent editorial actions related to EEoCs issued between August 2014 and August 2016. RESULTS: After screening 5076 records, we identified 230 EEoCs that affect 300 publications indexed in PubMed, the earliest issued in 1985. Half of the primary EEoCs were issued between 2014 and 2016 (52%). We found evidence of some EEoCs that had been removed by the publisher without leaving a record, and some were not submitted for PubMed or PMC indexing. A minority of publications affected by EEoCs had been retracted by early December 2016 (25%). For the subset of 92 EEoCs issued between August 2014 and August 2016, affecting 99 publications, the rate of retraction was similar (29%). The majority of EEoCs were issued because of concerns with validity of data, methods, or interpretation of the publication (68%), and 31% of cases remained open. Issues with images were raised in 40% of affected publications. Ongoing monitoring after the study identified another 17 EEoCs to year’s end in 2016, increasing the number of EEoCs to 247 and publications in PubMed known to be affected by EEoCs to 320 at the end of 2016. CONCLUSIONS: EEoCs have been rare publishing events in the biomedical literature, but their use has been increasing. Most have not led to retractions, and many remain unresolved. Lack of prominence and inconsistencies in management of EEoCs reduce the ability of these notices to alert the scientific community to potentially serious problems in publications. EEoCs will be made identifiable in PubMed in 2017. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s41073-017-0030-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5526611
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55266112017-08-16 Concern noted: a descriptive study of editorial expressions of concern in PubMed and PubMed Central Vaught, Melissa Jordan, Diana C. Bastian, Hilda Res Integr Peer Rev Research BACKGROUND: An editorial expression of concern (EEoC) is issued by editors or publishers to draw attention to potential problems in a publication, without itself constituting a retraction or correction. METHODS: We searched PubMed, PubMed Central (PMC), and Google Scholar to identify EEoCs issued for publications in PubMed and PMC up to 22 August 2016. We also searched the archives of the Retraction Watch blog, some journal and publisher websites, and studies of EEoCs. In addition, we searched for retractions of EEoCs and affected articles in PubMed up to 8 December 2016. We analyzed overall historical trends, as well as reported reasons and subsequent editorial actions related to EEoCs issued between August 2014 and August 2016. RESULTS: After screening 5076 records, we identified 230 EEoCs that affect 300 publications indexed in PubMed, the earliest issued in 1985. Half of the primary EEoCs were issued between 2014 and 2016 (52%). We found evidence of some EEoCs that had been removed by the publisher without leaving a record, and some were not submitted for PubMed or PMC indexing. A minority of publications affected by EEoCs had been retracted by early December 2016 (25%). For the subset of 92 EEoCs issued between August 2014 and August 2016, affecting 99 publications, the rate of retraction was similar (29%). The majority of EEoCs were issued because of concerns with validity of data, methods, or interpretation of the publication (68%), and 31% of cases remained open. Issues with images were raised in 40% of affected publications. Ongoing monitoring after the study identified another 17 EEoCs to year’s end in 2016, increasing the number of EEoCs to 247 and publications in PubMed known to be affected by EEoCs to 320 at the end of 2016. CONCLUSIONS: EEoCs have been rare publishing events in the biomedical literature, but their use has been increasing. Most have not led to retractions, and many remain unresolved. Lack of prominence and inconsistencies in management of EEoCs reduce the ability of these notices to alert the scientific community to potentially serious problems in publications. EEoCs will be made identifiable in PubMed in 2017. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s41073-017-0030-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-05-27 /pmc/articles/PMC5526611/ /pubmed/28758029 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41073-017-0030-2 Text en © US Government (outside the USA) 2017 Open AccessThe article is a work of the United States Government; Title 17 U.S.C 105 provides that copyright protection is not available for any work of the United States government in the United States. Additionally, this is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0), which permits worldwide unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium for any lawful purpose.
spellingShingle Research
Vaught, Melissa
Jordan, Diana C.
Bastian, Hilda
Concern noted: a descriptive study of editorial expressions of concern in PubMed and PubMed Central
title Concern noted: a descriptive study of editorial expressions of concern in PubMed and PubMed Central
title_full Concern noted: a descriptive study of editorial expressions of concern in PubMed and PubMed Central
title_fullStr Concern noted: a descriptive study of editorial expressions of concern in PubMed and PubMed Central
title_full_unstemmed Concern noted: a descriptive study of editorial expressions of concern in PubMed and PubMed Central
title_short Concern noted: a descriptive study of editorial expressions of concern in PubMed and PubMed Central
title_sort concern noted: a descriptive study of editorial expressions of concern in pubmed and pubmed central
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5526611/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28758029
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41073-017-0030-2
work_keys_str_mv AT vaughtmelissa concernnotedadescriptivestudyofeditorialexpressionsofconcerninpubmedandpubmedcentral
AT jordandianac concernnotedadescriptivestudyofeditorialexpressionsofconcerninpubmedandpubmedcentral
AT bastianhilda concernnotedadescriptivestudyofeditorialexpressionsofconcerninpubmedandpubmedcentral