Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article


Posted by mavissar-whiting270 on 12 Aug 2022 at 21:28 GMT

There are a number of inaccuracies in the abstract, where it is not consistent with the results in the main text. PLoS staff have indicated that due to the minor nature of the correction, it can be made by way of comment.

The results section of the abstract should read as follows:

"Of these, 11 retractions were clearly noted by the preprint servers; however, the existence of a preprint was not acknowledged by the retracting journal in any of the cases. The time from publication to retraction averaged 278 days, notably lower than the average for articles overall (839 days). In 20/30 (67%) of cases, retractions downstream of preprints were due - at least in part - to ethical or procedural misconduct. In 18/30 (60%) of cases, the nature of the retraction suggested that the conclusions were no longer reliable."

Competing interests declared: I am the author of the paper.