Correction of scientific literature: Too little, too late!

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has highlighted the limitations of the current scientific publication system, in which serious post-publication concerns are often addressed too slowly to be effective. In this Perspective, we offer suggestions to improve academia’s willingness and ability to correct errors in an appropriate time frame.

99% impossible: A valid, or falsifiable, internal meta-analysis.

How Ten Publishers Retract Research

Retractions are the primary mechanism for correcting the scholarly record, yet publishers differ markedly in how they use them. We present a bibliometric analysis of 46,087 retractions across 10 major publishers using data from the Retraction Watch database (1997-2026), examining retraction rates, reasons, temporal trends, and geographic distributions, among other dimensions. Normalized retraction rates vary by two orders of magnitude, from Elsevier's 3.97 per 10,000 publications to Hindawi's 320.02. China-affiliated authors account for the largest share of retractions at every publisher. Retraction lags and reason profiles also vary widely across publishers. Among the ten publishers, ACM is an outlier in its retraction profile. ACM's normalized rate is mid-range (5.65), yet 98.3% of its 354 retractions are related to one incident. Seven of the ten most common global retraction reasons (including misconduct, plagiarism, and data concerns) are entirely absent from ACM's record. ACM's first retraction dates to 2020, despite a catalog dating to 1997. ACM self-describes its retraction threshold as "extremely high." We discuss this threshold in relation to the COPE retraction guidelines and the implications of ACM's non-public dark archive of removed works.

I tried to report scientific misconduct. How did it go?

This is the story of how I found what I believe to be scientific misconduct and what happened when I reported it. Science is supposed to b...

Does <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ChatGPT</span> Ignore Article Retractions and Other Reliability Concerns?

ABSTRACT Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT seem to be increasingly used for information seeking and analysis, including to support academic literature reviews. To test whether the results might sometimes include retracted research, we identified 217 retracted or otherwise concerning academic studies with high altmetric scores and asked ChatGPT 4o‐mini to evaluate their quality 30 times each. Surprisingly, none of its 6510 reports mentioned that the articles were retracted or had relevant errors, and it gave 190 relatively high scores (world leading, internationally excellent, or close). The 27 articles with the lowest scores were mostly accused of being weak, although the topic (but not the article) was described as controversial in five cases (e.g., about hydroxychloroquine for COVID‐19). In a follow‐up investigation, 61 claims were extracted from retracted articles from the set, and ChatGPT 4o‐mini was asked 10 times whether each was true. It gave a definitive yes or a positive response two‐thirds of the time, including for at least one statement that had been shown to be false over a decade ago. The results therefore emphasise, from an academic knowledge perspective, the importance of verifying information from LLMs when using them for information seeking or analysis.

Does <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ChatGPT</span> Ignore Article Retractions and Other Reliability Concerns?

ABSTRACT Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT seem to be increasingly used for information seeking and analysis, including to support academic literature reviews. To test whether the results might sometimes include retracted research, we identified 217 retracted or otherwise concerning academic studies with high altmetric scores and asked ChatGPT 4o‐mini to evaluate their quality 30 times each. Surprisingly, none of its 6510 reports mentioned that the articles were retracted or had relevant errors, and it gave 190 relatively high scores (world leading, internationally excellent, or close). The 27 articles with the lowest scores were mostly accused of being weak, although the topic (but not the article) was described as controversial in five cases (e.g., about hydroxychloroquine for COVID‐19). In a follow‐up investigation, 61 claims were extracted from retracted articles from the set, and ChatGPT 4o‐mini was asked 10 times whether each was true. It gave a definitive yes or a positive response two‐thirds of the time, including for at least one statement that had been shown to be false over a decade ago. The results therefore emphasise, from an academic knowledge perspective, the importance of verifying information from LLMs when using them for information seeking or analysis.

I saw this meta-analysis shared a couple of times recently, so we took a look and re-analyzed the data. | František Bartoš

I saw this meta-analysis shared a couple of times recently, so we took a look and re-analyzed the data. We found that the conclusion is almost entirely driven by publication bias. Both state-of-the-art and standard methods reduce the degree of the effect 2-3 fold. Moreover, the data no longer show statistical evidence for the main conclusions. Importantly, our findings do not imply that there is no positive effect of ChatGPT, or other large language models on learning; in fact, our analysis reveals that there is “absence of evidence” rather than “evidence of absence”. The present literature appears to be contaminated by publication bias; high-quality registered reports are needed to properly evaluate the effect of large language models in educational settings. See the full response just submitted for publication at https://lnkd.in/eGKHHKtg

Sleuths flag ‘complete mismatch’ in data of BMJ stem cell study | Manoj Lalu

This is disappointing, but I’m not surprised. I was one of the reviewers for the initial version. You can see by my review (it’s all open) that I flagged primary outcome switching, a complete lack of any data on the cells themselves, and sample size inconsistencies in the protocol versus the report (and within the report). The data seemed impressive. Too good to be true I guess? I never saw the paper again in peer review after that initial review. The next notification I received was that the paper was accepted. Given BMJ’s commitment to open peer review and post-publication scrutiny (which I admire), I have no doubt we will hear about a formal editorial investigation soon.

Related work | Data Counterfactuals

Adjacent research areas and starting papers, curated in Semble and synced into the site.

Ozzy Osbourne's son falsely accused me of writing an article with AI

My reporting on Andrew Tate triggered him. He still won't correct the record.