Download PDFPDF

An investigation into the impact and implications of published papers from retracted research: systematic search of affected literature
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Rapid action is needed

    As corresponding author of the only paper out of 68 that "appeared to have undertaken a reassessment, which led to a correction" I have some sympathy for the authors of the other 67 papers. We decided that it was important that the problem due to the inclusion of subsequently retracted papers needed to be brought to the attention of readers, which we assumed would be relatively rapid. After agreement with my co-authors I emailed to the journal some text to highlight the problem and for readers to ignore the principle findings and rely on a secondary analysis which had excluded the suspect trials. The first email was sent on 18th August 2017. After receiving no response or acknowledgement a second email was sent on 13th November 2018, with a third on the 30th January 2018. A response was received on the 18th February 2018 and a correction published June 2018. Therefore it took the best part of a year to flag up an uncontested correction, which was a simple thing to do. It would be of interest to see if any of the authors of the remaining 67 papers had tried or are still trying to have a correction issues.
    David Torgersoni

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.