Publishers' Response to Post‐Publication Concerns About Clinical Research in Women's Health

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Potentially untrustworthy medical research is often identified after publication. We evaluated the effectiveness and efficiency of post-publication review of such studies in women's health. DESIGN: Cohort study. SAMPLE: Potentially untrustworthy papers published in women's health journals. METHODS: We wrote to the editors and publishers about potentially untrustworthy papers in women's health and requested an investigation according to the procedure established by the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Study characteristics, investigation outcome classed as retraction, expression of concern (EoC), correction or no wrongdoing found, and time to decision. We also report the case completion rate per journal and publisher. RESULTS: Between 7th November 2017 and 30th April 2024, we wrote to editors and publishers of 891 potentially untrustworthy papers published in 206 different journals. At present, 263 (30%) of 891 papers received an outcome, with 227 (86%) labelled as problematic [152 (58%) retracted; 75 (29%) EoC]. For articles with a decision, it took a median time of 38 months for editors and publishers to decide, with 13% of the flagged cases reaching a decision within 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: The current PPR process is inefficient and ineffective in assessing and removing untrustworthy data from the medical literature.

Ähnliche Arbeiten