I saw this opinion article on the problem of zombie papers and some possible solutions (i.e., retracted papers that continue to get cited and have influence) thanks to Retraction Watch. You can read the original in French here. Marc Joets makes some useful points here. Yes, we definitely have a problem. Part of the problem is that it takes a long time on average to get a problematic article (i.e., one that has error-ridden data reporting, fraudulent data reporting, or plagiarism) retracted. Apparently from date of publication to date of retraction, you're probably expect three years before a problematic paper is retracted, give or take. Apparently there are regional differences in time taken to retract an article: American and western European based journals do so more rapidly than elsewhere. Subscription based journals tend to retract articles more rapidly once a problem is identified than open source journals. In other words we need to keep in mind that there may be variations in culture and editorial practices at play.
I've mentioned retractions before, and zombie articles before. In our various scientific fields, zombies are a legitimately concerning problem. As long as they are cited, they risk infecting not only the specific scientific discipline in question but also public discourse and policy. If you are living in the US right now, you probably know that a fraudulent and retracted article that spread some outright lies about the safety of childhood vaccinations has led in a matter of a couple decades to mainstream an anti-vax movement that is now in control of our own federal public health agencies. In this case, the consequences are life and death as the government is no longer as interested in containing a deadly measles outbreak. In my corner of the scientific community, the stakes may be considerably lower, but zombie articles can still infect public discourse and policy in ways that are not in the public interest.
So, what to do? The answers in this editorial are ones that strike me as common sense at this point. Making data and research protocols publicly available can help to catch mistakes and fraud early enough to nip the problem in the bud. Better plagiarism detection tools are mentioned as well. Ultimately the author notes that there is no one-size-fits-all solution. But in broad brushstrokes we can expect that efforts to beef up transparency help. Efforts to improve reproducibility - requiring pre-registration of research protocols and offering evidence of replicability -are also necessary. Any of these practices can help detect errors or problems in a more timely manner. In addition to better plagiarism detection tools, the author suggests that each journal have its own panel that can objectively handle instances of fraud or serious errors as they occur. Finally, the author argues for making the fact that these articles have been retracted more visible in order to minimize the impact of retracted work. That strikes me as a solid idea. I still get a sense that retractions are not nearly as visible as they could be. Those with the PubPeer browser extension might be a bit more wise to retractions, as are those who use the Retraction Watch site's own retraction database. But how many of us are actually using those resources currently and consistently? I wonder.
I wish that instructions for eliminating zombies from our sciences were as simple as "destroy the brain or remove the head"* but alas they are not. I remain a cautious optimist however.
*The reference in that quote was specifically to "Shaun of the Dead" which is a personal favorite of mine, but probably would refer to most zombie films and series I've seen over the years.
No comments:
Post a Comment