COVID-19: More retractions in journals than preprints

Retraction Watch database was used to identify retracted preprints and journal papers

Emergency use authorisation, pharmaceutical companies announcing the results of clinical trials first through press releases, free access to all COVID-19 scientific papers published in journals and a sharp increase in the number of preprints posted became more common during the pandemic. Except free access to all COVID-19 papers in journals, which otherwise would have been behind paywalls, all the others came under severe criticism at some point. 

As per a comment in  The Lancet, an average of 39.5 COVID-19 preprints were posted each day during the pandemic compared with just 10.5 per day during the Ebola virus epidemic of 2014. Also, the first preprint was posted just 22 days after health authority notification of the initial cluster of cases in Wuhan, China. In contrast, no preprints were posted for about six months after first cluster notifications in the case of Ebola virus and Zika virus. 

Early in the pandemic, bioRxiv added a banner on its home paper and on top of every preprint dealing with COVID-19. The banner read, “bioRxiv posts many COVID-related papers. A reminder: they have not been formally peer-reviewed and should not guide health-related behaviour or be reported in the press as conclusive”. The decision to publish the disclaimer was prompted by a highly questionable study by Indian researchers posted on bioRxiv preprint server, which was soon withdrawn.

Scientists submit their early drafts to the preprint server, where an in-house team weeds out “obvious spam and clear garbage,” as well as submissions that are not scientific in nature, Richard Sever, co-founder of bioRxiv preprint server, was quoted as saying following the Indian researchers’ study. 

Because preprints are yet to be peer-reviewed, most newspapers while detailing the results posted in preprint servers did caution their readers that the study in question is yet to be peer-reviewed. The notion is that since preprints are yet to be peer-reviewed by domain experts prior to posting, readers should exercise caution and not take the study results on face value. In contrast, results and findings of all papers published in journal papers after the scientific vetting process are deemed to be reliable and correct.  

A small study of retracted preprints and journal papers on and about COVID-19 has turned these notions on its head. A team led by Dr. Jitendra Kumar Meena from AIIMS, Delhi found that there were more papers published in journals post peer-review that were retracted than preprints — 143 retracted peer-reviewed journal papers compared with just 40 retracted preprints.

The results of this study were posted as a preprint in medRxiv server; preprints are yet to be peer-reviewed. The researchers looked at the following preprint servers that published COVID-19 studies — medrRxiv, bioRxiv, arXiv, Social Science Research Network (SSRN), OSF Preprints, and Research Square.