Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jun;132(7):892-901.
doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.18100. Epub 2025 Feb 26.

Publishers' Response to Post-Publication Concerns About Clinical Research in Women's Health

Siddharth Shivantha  1 , Nicole Ling Shan Au  1 , Lyle Gurrin  2 , Jim Thornton  3 , Jeremy Nielsen  1 , Ben W Mol  1   4
Affiliations

Publishers' Response to Post-Publication Concerns About Clinical Research in Women's Health

Siddharth Shivantha et al. BJOG. 2025 Jun.

Abstract

Objective: Potentially untrustworthy medical research is often identified after publication. We evaluated the effectiveness and efficiency of post-publication review of such studies in women's health.

Design: Cohort study.

Sample: Potentially untrustworthy papers published in women's health journals.

Methods: We wrote to the editors and publishers about potentially untrustworthy papers in women's health and requested an investigation according to the procedure established by the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE).

Main outcome measure: Study characteristics, investigation outcome classed as retraction, expression of concern (EoC), correction or no wrongdoing found, and time to decision. We also report the case completion rate per journal and publisher.

Results: Between 7th November 2017 and 30th April 2024, we wrote to editors and publishers of 891 potentially untrustworthy papers published in 206 different journals. At present, 263 (30%) of 891 papers received an outcome, with 227 (86%) labelled as problematic [152 (58%) retracted; 75 (29%) EoC]. For articles with a decision, it took a median time of 38 months for editors and publishers to decide, with 13% of the flagged cases reaching a decision within 12 months.

Conclusions: The current PPR process is inefficient and ineffective in assessing and removing untrustworthy data from the medical literature.

Keywords: Women's health; post‐publication review; trustworthiness; untrustworthy data.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

B.W.M. is supported by a National Health Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). B.W.M. reports consultancy, travel support and research funding from Merck and consultancy for Organon and Norgine.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Flowchart of the number of papers analysed.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Kaplan‐Meier curve of time to case completion (all journals and publishers) up to 60 months, with right censoring for cases still“pending investigation” at the study end date.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Carlisle J. B., “False Individual Patient Data and Zombie Randomised Controlled Trials Submitted to Anaesthesia,” Anaesthesia 76 (2021): 472–479. - PubMed
    1. Chambers L., Michener C., and Falcone T., “Plagiarism and Data Falsification Are the Most Common Reasons for Retracted Publications in Obstetrics and Gynaecology,” BJOG 126 (2019): 1134–1140. - PubMed
    1. Ioannidis J. P. A., “Hundreds of Thousands of Zombie Randomised Trials Circulate Among Us,” Anaesthesia 76 (2021): 444–447. - PubMed
    1. Saiz L. C., Erviti J., and Garjón J., “When Authors Lie, Readers Cry and Editors Sigh,” BMJ Evidence‐Based Medicine 23 (2018): 92–95. - PubMed
    1. Weeks J., Cuthbert A., and Alfirevic Z., “Trustworthiness Assessment as an Inclusion Criterion for Systematic Reviews—What Is the Impact on Results?,” Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods 1 (2023): e12037.