Title : Publisher's post-publication response rate and outcomes of concerns regarding false data in women’s health: A cohort study
Abstract:
Background: There is increasing concern about the integrity of clinical research. The post-publication review process allows the assessment of potentially problematic papers after publication. The effectiveness and efficiency of post-publication assessment, which adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, has not been assessed. Shortcomings of this process will allow the dissemination of potential false clinical research data, thus negatively impacting healthcare. The current study assessed and quantified publishers’ and editors’ post-publication responses and outcomes on original articles with potentially untrustworthy data.
Method: Between 2017 and 2023, the study identified and assessed potentially problematic papers in Women's Health. Respective journal editors and publishers were contacted with the concerns identified during the assessment. The journals’ response was classified as retractions, expression of concerns (EOC), corrections, no wrongdoings and pending investigation. The time taken for a formal conclusion was also calculated.
Results: Editors and publishers of 732 problematic published papers were corresponded with over the 6-year period (58% randomised clinical trials, and 42% cohort studies). The median time to response was 33 months, with only 12% of the assessments that concluded within 12 months. 183 papers (25%) received formal conclusions (retraction 95, EOC 64, correction 4 and no wrongdoing found 20). Amongst these, 87% were retractions and EOCs. In those, 62% were due to false data.
Conclusion: Concerns regarding integrity in clinical research are much more widespread than initially assumed. The post-publication assessment process guided by COPE has many shortcomings, including absent timelines. This has immediate consequences for patient safety.
Audience Take Away:
- By recognizing the scale and magnitude of untrustworthy data in women’s health. The audience can become more vigilant in assessing the integrity of published data in a study.
- Researchers and clinicians could develop their own or add to existing criteria/checklists in assessing untrustworthy data.
- To encourage the audience to flag potential problematic papers to respective editors and publishers.
- Spark a conversation within the scientific community and brainstorm ideas about improving the pre and post-publication review process.
- Publication of untrustworthy data is universal. Thus, all faculties could implement workshops or training programs to help researchers, editors etc.
- Increased collaboration between faculties could bring together experts from different disciplines to maintain research integrity.
- The study offers insight into the entire post-publication review process and its challenges. The current method of assessing potential untrustworthy papers is time-consuming.
- Future research could look into improving communication strategies between parties involved and setting standardized timelines for response, which could improve the review process.
- Increased awareness of the problem could lead to discussion of improving the current method from the scientific community.
- This could prompt journal editors and publishers to improve the post-publication review process.
