Procrastination and inconsistency: Expressions of concern for publications with compromised integrity

ABSTRACT

Expressions of concern (EoC) can reduce the adverse effects of unreliable publications by alerting readers to concerns about publication integrity while assessment is undertaken. We investigated the use of EoC for 463 publications by two research groups for which we notified concerns about publication integrity to 142 journals and 44 publishers between March 2013 and February 2020. By December 2021, 95 papers had had an EoC, and 83 were retracted without an EoC. Median times from notification of concerns to EoC (10.4mo) or retraction without EoC (13.1mo) were similar. Among the 95 EoCs, 29 (30.5%) were followed by retraction after a median of 5.4mo, none was lifted, and 66 (69.5%) remained in place after a median of 18.1mo. Publishers with >10 notified publications issued EoCs for 0–81.8% of papers: for several publishers the proportions of notified papers for which EoCs were issued varied considerably between the 2 research groups. EoCs were issued for >30% of notified publications of randomized clinical trials and letters to the editor, and <20% of other types of research. These results demonstrate inconsistent application of EoCs between and within publishers, and prolonged times to issue and resolve EoCs.

KEYWORDS:

• Publication integrity
• Publication Ethics
• research integrity
• expression of concern
• academic publishing
• retraction
• Committee on Publication Ethics

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Contributorship

All authors designed the research. AG collated the data, performed the analyses, and drafted the paper. All authors critically reviewed and improved it. AG is the guarantor for the article. All authors had access to all the data. AG takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Data availability

Study data are either available in the public domain or can be obtained from the lead author upon reasonable request.

Transparency statement

AG affirms that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned have been explained

Additional information

Funding

The study received no specific funding. MB is the recipient of an HRC Clinical Practitioner Fellowship. The Health Services Research Unit is funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates. The authors are independent of the HRC. The HRC had no role in study design, the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, the writing of the article, or the decision to submit it for publication.