Silently withdrawn or retracted preprints related to Covid-19 are a scholarly threat and a potential public health risk: theoretical arguments and suggested recommendations

Purpose: Thousands of preprints related to Covid-19 have effused into the academic literature Even though these are not peer-reviewed documents and have not been vetted by medical or other experts, several have been cited, while others have been widely promoted by the media While many preprints eventually find their way into the published literature, usually through integrated publishing streams, there is a small body of preprints that have been opaquely withdrawn/retracted, without suitable reasons, leaving only a vestigial or skeletal record online Others have, quite literally, vanished This paper aims to examine some of those cases Design/methodology/approach: For peer-reviewed literature, a retracted academic paper is usually water-marked with “RETRACTED” across each page of the document, as recommended by ethical bodies such as the Committee on Publication Ethics, which represents thousands of journals and publishers Curiously, even though pro-preprint groups claim that preprints are an integral part of the publication process and a scholarly instrument, there are no strict, detailed or established ethical guidelines for preprints on most preprint servers This paper identifies select withdrawn/retracted preprints and emphasizes that the opaque removal of preprints from the scholarly record may constitute unscholarly, possibly even predatory or unethical, behavior Findings: Strict ethical guidelines are urgently needed for preprints, and preprint authors, in the case of misconduct, should face the same procedure and consequences as standard peer-reviewed academic literature Originality/value: Journals and publishers that have silently retracted or withdrawn preprints should reinstate them, as for regular retracted literature, except for highly exceptional cases © 2020, Emerald Publishing Limited

[1]  Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva,et al.  Notices and Policies for Retractions, Expressions of Concern, Errata and Corrigenda: Their Importance, Content, and Context , 2016, Science and Engineering Ethics.

[2]  Shahbaz Syed,et al.  The Twitter pandemic: The critical role of Twitter in the dissemination of medical information and misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic , 2020, CJEM.

[3]  Tom Sheldon,et al.  Preprints could promote confusion and distortion , 2018, Nature.

[4]  J. A. T. Silva Silent or Stealth Retractions, the Dangerous Voices of the Unknown, Deleted Literature , 2016 .

[5]  J. A. Teixeira da Silva An Error is an Error… is an Erratum: The Ethics of not Correcting Errors in the Science Literature , 2016 .

[6]  Preprinting the COVID-19 pandemic , 2020 .

[7]  J. A. T. Silva An Alert to COVID-19 Literature in Predatory Publishing Venues. , 2020 .

[9]  A. Rodríguez-Morales,et al.  Ivermectin, a new candidate therapeutic against SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 , 2020, Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials.

[10]  J. A. T. Silva An Error is an Error… is an Erratum: The Ethics of not Correcting Errors in the Science Literature , 2016 .

[11]  Nicholas Fraser,et al.  Preprinting the COVID-19 pandemic , 2020, bioRxiv.

[12]  E. Callaway Will the pandemic permanently alter scientific publishing? , 2020, Nature.

[13]  Diana Kwon How swamped preprint servers are blocking bad coronavirus research , 2020, Nature.

[14]  J. A. T. Silva Ethical exceptionalism: can publishing rules be manipulated to give the impression of ethical publishing? , 2017 .

[15]  J. A. Teixeira da Silva,et al.  Excessively Long Editorial Decisions and Excessively Long Publication Times by Journals: Causes, Risks, Consequences, and Proposed Solutions , 2017 .

[16]  J. A. T. Silva,et al.  Preprint policies among 14 academic publishers , 2019, The Journal of Academic Librarianship.

[17]  J. A. Teixeira da Silva Silent or Stealth Retractions, the Dangerous Voices of the Unknown, Deleted Literature , 2016 .

[18]  COVID-19 and the policy sciences: initial reactions and perspectives , 2020, Policy sciences.

[19]  D. Moher,et al.  Stop this waste of people, animals and money , 2017, Nature.

[20]  F. Chirico,et al.  “Questionable” peer review in the publishing pandemic during the time of COVID-19: implications for policy makers and stakeholders , 2020, Croatian medical journal.

[21]  S. Horbach Pandemic publishing: Medical journals strongly speed up their publication process for COVID-19 , 2020, Quantitative Science Studies.

[22]  J. A. Teixeira da Silva,et al.  Predatory and exploitative behaviour in academic publishing: An assessment , 2019, The Journal of Academic Librarianship.

[23]  Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva The preprint debate: What are the issues? , 2017 .