The media's extensive coverage of the debunked link between childhood vaccines and autism has led to severe public health repercussions. Misinformation from these retracted studies fueled anti-vaccination movements, causing many parents to become hesitant about routine immunizations, such as the administration of oral vaccines. This widespread reluctance directly contributed to a resurgence of preventable diseases, as seen in the 22 measles outbreaks and over a thousand infections reported in the United States during 2019.

Public Health Consequences of Vaccine Misinformation

A notable example of retracted research is the false claim that routine childhood vaccines cause autism. Although several peer-reviewed studies initially supported this link, large-scale epidemiological research demonstrated no connection and affirmed vaccine safety. The original studies were retracted after it was revealed that the lead researcher had a significant financial conflict of interest in establishing the link.

Google

Saint Louis University

University of Michigan - Ann Arbor

The study presented in this paper looked at articles in the biomedical and medical fields that were published between 2010 and 2014 that were retracted prior to 2017. The study looked at readership of the articles, citations before and after the article was retracted, and social media shares. The purpose of the study was to see how the misinformation in retracted articles spreads and continues to spread after it has been removed from the literature. 

Study on Retracted Articles

The presence of contradictory studies on a topic is a normal part of the scientific process. It reflects the scientific community's ongoing effort to reach a consensus. A clear, widely accepted understanding only emerges after a sufficient amount of research has been conducted and the collective evidence begins to point in a consistent direction, a process that can take a significant amount of time.

Process of Reaching Scientific Consensus

The outcome of replication studies significantly influences the scientific community's confidence in a research finding. Successful replications increase the likelihood that the original findings will be accepted and adopted, whereas repeated failures to replicate cast doubt on the legitimacy of the original study, prompting scientists to seek alternative explanations.

Impact of Replication Outcomes on Scientific Findings

A published piece of scientific work can be rescinded, or retracted, when its data is called into question due to fabrication, falsification, or severe flaws in research design. This formal process alerts the scientific community to serious problems with the original study. A retraction can be initiated by the study's lead researcher, their research collaborators, their employing institution, or the editorial board of the publishing journal.

Retraction of Scientific Publications

Bar-Ilan, J., & Halevi, G. (2020). Retracted articles: The scientific version of fake news. In R. Greifeneder, M. Jaffé, E. J. Newman, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), The psychology of fake news: Accepting, sharing, and correcting misinformation (pp. 47–70). London: Routledge. 

Retracted articles: The scientific version of fake news

Spielman, R. M., Jenkins, W. J., & Lovett, M. D. (2020, April 22). Psychology (2nd ed.). OpenStax. https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction

OpenStax Psychology (2nd ed.) Textbook

1. Contributing to the spread of misinformation, articles that have been retracted often become free 
- Access becomes easier to the public
- Articles continue to be cited after retraction
2. Time gap between publication and retraction has been shorted due to technology 
- Little over a year (now) versus estimated 10 years (past)
- However, information spreads faster due to social media 
- A year is still enough time to influence medical and biomedical scientific process on many levels
3. Misinformation is not just incorrect information
- Selective inclusion or manipulation of the data affirms the author’s claims 
4. Debates continue to happen about retracted articles 
- Even after the science has been proven fault, people are more likely to believe information that supports their opinions
- Information that has been proven false is not always supported 

Key Takeaways from the Retracted Articles Study

The authors recommended that readers read each article critically and to look for sponsored content around the articles, as those can indicate conflicts of interest. They advocated for obviously labeling retracted papers and not making them freely available in online databases. 

Tips for Reading Scientific Articles

Articles are often cited after being retracted. When the retraction is due to faulty data or other issues that impact the conclusion of the study, this leads to the propagation of misinformation in the scientific community. 


Post-Retraction Citations

- Scopus
- Altmetric.com
- PlumX
- Mendeley

Databases to Find Scientific Article Metrics

The amount of time between publication and retraction has decreased from 2.67 years to 1.1 years. This indicates that the methods of fact-checking and reviewing published articles have gotten more efficient. This is a result of access to plagiarism-detecting technology and other technological advances. 

Timeline for Retracting a Scientific Article

Data from PlumX and Altmetric.com shows that Twitter is the dominant social media platform for sharing the retracted articles. It is also the platform where the most meaningful discussion of them takes place. Facebook is the second most popular platform for sharing the articles. 

Where are Retracted Articles Being Shared?

Example of Retracted Research: The Vaccine-Autism Controversy

The critical role of replication can be illustrated with a medical research scenario. If a study reports that a new drug improves health, this would be a major advancement. However, if subsequent studies by other scientists fail to reproduce these results, the claims of the original study would be seriously questioned, preventing the widespread adoption of an ineffective treatment.

Example of Replication's Importance in Medical Research

Based on the scenario below, evaluate the current scientific standing of the 'Melodic Memory Effect' and justify your conclusion.

Evaluating a Research Finding

- "Other than detecting impact in advance, alternative metrics could act as early warning signs of retractions: tentative findings of a study into the papers retracted by PLoS ONE"
- "Allegation of scientific misconduct increases Twitter attention"
- "Temporal characteristics of retracted articles"

Literature on the Retraction of Publications

Preprints, unlike traditionally peer-reviewed papers, do not need to undergo careful scrutiny and are thus able to be published and uploaded to servers much more efficiently. During the initial COVID-19 outbreak, many researchers uploaded their findings on preprint servers for others to study and reference, despite containing quite some false information. Since then, preprints have become a major source of the spread of misinformation regarding COVID-19 due to countless new papers that have cited preprints that are now retracted, withdrawn, or have completely disappeared. 

Retraction of COVID-19-Related Preprints

To date, a list of papers on COVID-19 have been retracted and withdrawn for spreading misinformation regarding the coronavirus or for containing obviously flawed data collection and results. Scientists and researchers alike now question the lack of quality in these retracted papers and study how different factors have contributed to the unusually high rates of retraction on COVID-19-related papers. 

Learn Before

Related

Learn After