P-385 Are you completely aware of your citations? A cross-sectional study on improper citations of retracted articles in medically assisted reproduction
Authors: Minetto S , Pisaturo D , Cermisoni G C , Rabellotti E , Pagliardini L , Candiani M , Papaleo E , Alteri A 
Published: June 2023

Abstract

Study question
Are authors aware that they have cited a retracted paper in their manuscripts in medically assisted reproduction (MAR)?

Summary answer
Most corresponding authors were unaware of their own inappropriate retracted citations, mainly due to improper notification of retraction status.

What is known already
Retraction is a severe penalty in scientific research for various reasons, ranging from honest mistakes made in good faith to deliberate misbehaviour. Scientific publications with compromised integrity should be retracted and, once retracted, only be cited in the context of that retraction. However, it has long been recognized that large numbers of citations of retracted papers occur, usually without mentioning the retraction. Concern about the study of inappropriate citation of retracted articles has been gaining momentum in recent years. However, this topic has yet to be considered in medically assisted reproduction.

Study design, size, duration
From December 23, 2022 to January 29, 2023, a cross-sectional study based on an online survey was conducted to acquire information on the irregular citation pattern from corresponding authors who cited a retracted article. The survey was set up in Google Forms and included seven questions. The survey was distributed via e-mail to corresponding authors who cited a retracted paper in their study using the Mailchimp platform. Three reminders were sent about ten days apart.

Participants/materials, setting, methods
A dataset of retracted articles in MAR published up to July 2022 was collected from PubMed and Retraction Watch, according to our systematic review (registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020185769). For each retracted article, a complete list of cited articles published was retrieved from PubMed and Google Scholar. Search, and screening were performed independently by two authors, and any disagreement about the eligibility of a study was resolved through discussion with a third author.

Main results and the role of chance
Forty-three MAR retracted articles were selected, of which 36 were included. Specifically, manuscripts that cited a retracted article in the year of publication of the retraction notice or the following year were excluded from this analysis (n = 7) to reduce instances of citation by authors potentially unaware of the retraction of the cited article. The survey was sent to 267 corresponding authors and 39 filled out the survey (participation rate 14.6%). Most respondents (79.5%) were unaware of the retraction status of the cited articles, mainly due to inadequate notification of retraction status in the research database (33.3%), inadequate notification of retraction status in the journal (24.2%), or use of stored copies of the retracted manuscript (15.2%). Regarding bibliography building, 48.7% of respondents declared that they use both online databases and previously printed copies to search scientific manuscripts. Notably, the majority of authors (61.5%) declared that references were entered and checked by only one author before submission and that, during the review process, no one received concerns from editors and/or reviewers about the retracted references. Finally, according to 53.8% of participants, no check of retraction notices is performed, while only 12.8% check both the journal website and scientific databases.

Limitations, reasons for caution
This online survey on citation inappropriateness provided some insight into the justifications correlated with it. Despite the approach used to identify retracted articles in the context of MAR and citations, some may have been missed. In addition, incorrect or disused e-mail addresses constituted a limitation for this study.

Wider implications of the findings
Correcting publications containing references that are subsequently retracted is significant for systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and guidelines. Citations of retracted articles perpetuate erroneous scientific data, even though assessing the accuracy of citations requires considerable effort. Proper notification of retraction status and cross-checking of citations can help prevent errors.

Trial registration number
N/A