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

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]

 

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.

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.