**In a concerning revelation, over 300 COVID-related medical articles have been retracted from various research journals since the onset of the pandemic. Issues such as scientific errors, breaches in ethical standards, and unbridled publishing pressure have contributed to this wave of retractions, putting the credibility of research at stake.**
Watchdog group Retraction Watch has been maintaining a list of retracted COVID-related medical papers, with the count currently standing at 330. Withdrawn articles have appeared in both smaller and prominent journals like the Lancet and Science.
Troublingly, some journals have compromised ethical standards to approve more COVID-related publications. Gunnveig Grødeland, a senior researcher at the University of Oslo, revealed that the withdrawn papers have been retracted due to a variety of reasons, with many violating ethical guidelines.
An alarming trend has surfaced with preprints, which can often be updated or published elsewhere. Should a preprint be found to contain flawed data, Retraction Watch states that journals would not retract it, as “the server made no claim to have peer-reviewed and certified the scientific content in the first place.” However, preprints may be removed in cases of fraud, ethics violations, dangerous material, or legal issues.
Notable examples of retracted papers include a Lancet article claiming that hydroxychloroquine increased the risk of death from COVID and a Science report examining the spread of the Omicron variant in South Africa, which used potentially false positive samples.
Monash University’s investigation found that a staggering 270,000 COVID-related papers had been published since 2020. It also revealed that retracted papers continue to be cited, with 90% of the citations not acknowledging the withdrawal and 80% published post-retraction.
**This surge in retractions and the continued citation of withdrawn articles underscores the urgent need for vigilant monitoring, stringent guidelines, and uncompromised ethics in research. Failing to do so endangers public trust and undermines the essential contributions of scientific inquiry to addressing the pandemic.**
