Correcting the scientific record on abortion and mental health outcomes, 2024, Littell et al.

[SNT Gatchaman]

Correcting the scientific record on abortion and mental health outcomes
Julia H Littell; Kathryn M Abel; M Antonia Biggs; Robert W Blum; Diana Greene Foster; Lisa B Haddad; Brenda Major; Trine Munk-Olsen; Chelsea B Polis; Gail Erlick Robinson; Corinne H Rocca; Nancy Felipe Russo; Julia R Steinberg; Donna E Stewart; Nada Logan Stotland; Ushma D Upadhyay; Jenneke van Ditzhuijzen

Julia Littell and colleagues argue that better adherence to ethical standards for correction or retraction of unreliable publications is essential to avoid harmful effects on public policy, clinical practice, and public health.

Key messages

• Failure to correct or retract unreliable research papers published in medical journals allows misinformation to spread under the journals’ imprimatur

• Cumulative lapses in scientific integrity pose ongoing threats to public health and public trust in science

• Unreliable evidence and invalid conclusions about the mental health outcomes of abortion was used to inform policies that restrict access to abortion in the US

• Scientists, editors, journals, and publishers must ensure that published materials are accurate and must correct or retract articles when necessary to maintain the integrity of science

Link | PDF (BMJ) [Open Access]

 

[SNT Gatchaman]

The scientific community has contended with unreliable research for decades. Ideally, fatally flawed studies will be detected by peer reviewers and rejected by journal editors, but these processes are subjective, varied, and susceptible to error. Post-publication critiques can identify important flaws, and public debate can shed light on the nature of these problems, but these actions do not correct the scientific record. Thus, when authors are unwilling or unable to make sufficient corrections, published papers occasionally have to be retracted to correct the scientific record.

When asked to defend this research against mounting published criticism, authors argued that, because these articles have not been corrected or retracted, they represent sound scientific work and scholarly journals stand behind them.

COPE states that retraction of articles is needed when they contain “such seriously flawed or erroneous content or data that their findings and conclusions cannot be relied upon.” Editors must therefore make important—albeit difficult—distinctions between inconsequential imperfections in research articles, unreliable evidence or invalid arguments, and evidence of research misconduct.

Some editors have avoided retraction, as in the cases above, preferring resolution by academic debate, airing “both sides” without commenting on the methodological rigour or weight of the evidence supporting different conclusions.Some editors treated authors’ failures to meet basic expectations regarding research integrity as mere differences of opinion or scientific controversies worthy of debate.Some incorrectly assumed that retractions can only be made by authors.65 Others asserted, contrary to COPE and ICMJE guidelines, that retraction requires evidence of fraud or fabrication. Others claimed that the passage of time renders retraction unnecessary (there is no statute of limitations for retractions).We think these positions miss the mark because the sole purpose of retraction is to correct the scientific record.

Failure to correct fundamental flaws in the scientific foundations of any empirical argument is shirking editorial responsibilities and allows inaccurate information to flourish under the publishers’ imprimatur. Responsibilities for scientific integrity and publication ethics must be given the highest priority and must be fully discharged by editors and journals, especially when there are real consequences for patients and public health.

Decisions about retraction should never be compromised by politics, controversy, or legal threats. Scientific controversies are not properly adjudicated by the courts, and journal editors, owners, and publishers must be prepared to face and overcome legal threats, which are likely to be baseless, as the rejection of claims against retraction of a study in Frontiers in Psychology has shown. As others have suggested, journals should consider making legal threats public to discourage further use of this tactic.

 

[rvallee]

Published in BMJ and cites COPE, which as we know has been ignoring issues with Cochrane's terrible reviews on GET, where authors somehow, sometimes, get a veto on not retracting because "nuh uh", and simply mumbling about how it's out of their hands. LMAO.

It's things like this that makes it feel like we're living in a simulation stuck in satire mode.

Cumulative lapses in scientific integrity pose ongoing threats to public health and public trust in science

You can say that again. As in literally say it again and again, even when you like the results of a paper riddled with lapses in scientific integrity. Even when you are the one in a position to do something about it, BMJ.

But the simple reality is that usually nothing good comes out of admitting that a paper is flawed and to retract it. In fact it's only then that lapses in integrity get noticed, as otherwise they're simply batted off with the usual "not retracted, therefore the claims are demonstrably false". It pretty much acts the same way as failing to prosecute crimes from someone powerful, who can then say that no such crimes occurred since they weren't prosecuted. This happens all the time and it breaks trust in judicial systems.

Unless the system changes, none of this will change. It's been a problem for decades and it's only gotten worse.