Taking it back: A pilot study of a rubric measuring retraction notice quality.

The frequency of scientific retractions has grown substantially in recent years. However, thus far there is no standardized retraction notice format to which journals and their publishers adhere voluntarily, let alone compulsorily. We developed a rubric specifying seven criteria in order to judge whether retraction notices are easily and freely accessible, informative, and transparent.

Rooting out scientific misconduct.

Scientific misconduct is an issue rife with controversy, from its forms and definitions to the policies that guide how allegations are handled. A survey published nearly 15 years ago reported that 2% of researchers said they had fabricated or falsified data in their published work. This is not just an academic issue.

An "alarming" and "exceptionally high" rate of COVID-19 retractions?

More than 20 papers about COVID-19 have been retracted at the time of this writing. It is premature, however, to conclude that such work is being retracted at higher rates than the rest of the literature.

Will Improvements in Health Journalism Improve Health Literacy?

Today's health care journalists work in a very different environment than those of yesterday. The demand for stories and broadcasts has grown exponentially, and the resources available have shrunk dramatically. While it may therefore be difficult to see how improvements in health care journalism are possible, let alone a way to improve health care literacy, there is an important connection that, if illuminated, could help both fields.

Correction to: Three randomized controlled trials evaluating the impact of "spin" in health news stories reporting studies of pharmacologic treatments on patients'/caregivers' interpretation of treatment benefit.

Figure 3 in the original article [1] is incorrect; labels for secondary outcomes have been shifted and do not correspond to the numbers reported in the table (Additional file 8). The corrected version can be seen ahead. This figure should be used over the figure 3 seen in the original article.

Three randomized controlled trials evaluating the impact of "spin" in health news stories reporting studies of pharmacologic treatments on patients'/caregivers' interpretation of treatment benefit.

Background: News stories represent an important source of information. We aimed to evaluate the impact of "spin" (i.e.

Analysis of retracted articles in the surgical literature.

Background: Retractions of scientific articles represent attempts to correct the literature. Our goal was to examine retracted surgical papers.

Methods: NCBI PubMed database was queried using the search terms "surgery," "surg," or "surgical" and "retracted" or "retraction.

Interpretation of health news items reported with or without spin: protocol for a prospective meta-analysis of 16 randomised controlled trials.

Introduction: We aim to compare the interpretation of health news items reported with or without spin. 'Spin' is defined as a misrepresentation of study results, regardless of motive (intentionally or unintentionally) that overemphasises the beneficial effects of the intervention and overstates safety compared with that shown by the results.

Methods And Analysis: We have planned a series of 16 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to perform a prospective meta-analysis.

What studies of retractions tell us.

The retraction is receiving a growing amount of attention as an important event in scientific and scholarly publishing. Not only are some journals becoming increasingly open in their handling of the articles they withdraw-allowing researchers to gain important insights into the work of their colleagues-but scholars, too, have greater access to the reasons for retractions, information that is dramatically reshaping our understanding of such events. As this article will demonstrate, recent research has inverted the accepted lore about why retractions happen and their impact.