You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 9, Issue 10
  • An investigation into the impact and implications of published papers from retracted research: systematic search of affected literature

Responses

Article menu

This article has a correction. Please see:

Download PDFPDF

XML
Ethics
Original research
An investigation into the impact and implications of published papers from retracted research: systematic search of affected literature
Compose a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on: 6 November 2019
    Rapid action is needed

    Editor,
    As corresponding author of the only paper out of 68 that "appeared to have undertaken a reassessment, which led to a correction" I have some sympathy for the authors of the other 67 papers. We decided that it was important that the problem due to the inclusion of subsequently retracted papers needed to be brought to the attention of readers, which we assumed would be relatively rapid. After agreement with my co-authors I emailed to the journal some text to highlight the problem and for readers to ignore the principle findings and rely on a secondary analysis which had excluded the suspect trials. The first email was sent on 18th August 2017. After receiving no response or acknowledgement a second email was sent on 13th November 2018, with a third on the 30th January 2018. A response was received on the 18th February 2018 and a correction published June 2018. Therefore it took the best part of a year to flag up an uncontested correction, which was a simple thing to do. It would be of interest to see if any of the authors of the remaining 67 papers had tried or are still trying to have a correction issues.
    David Torgersoni

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.