The “Silent” Removal of Bibliometric Information of Three SSRN Preprints Related to Peer Review, and then their Full Reinstatement
-
Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
Abstract
For data information scientists, librarians and academics alike, it is a worrisome sign when information or a file opaquely disappears from the body of scientific literature, even more so when it carries a digital object identifier (DOI). This is because the DOI typically offers a published paper a form of digital permanence. Preprints are being increasingly fused into the publication stream, serving as a prelude to submission to a peer-reviewed journal. One of the main preprint servers is Elsevier’s SSRN. This paper, a rare case study, describes three preprints by the same authors related to peer review that were withdrawn (i.e., retracted). Apart from a short notice with identical text (“This paper has been removed from SSRN at the request of the author, SSRN, or the rights holder”), no date of the withdrawals and no explanation were publicly provided. Following queries to the authors and SSRN, the three preprints were reinstated around February 2023. Finally, the original title of two of the preprints was manipulated in the reinstated preprints. This historical case study not only highlights the risks of opaque preprint withdrawals, but also the ease with which information on preprint servers (in this case SSRN) can be modified and/or manipulated.
-
Ethical approval: Not applicable.
-
Competing interests: None.
-
Author contributions: All aspects.
-
Research funding: None.
-
Data availability: No data was used for this paper.
References
ASAPbio. 2023. List of Preprint Servers: Policies and Practices across Platforms. https://asapbio.org/preprint-servers (accessed March 23, 2023).Search in Google Scholar
COPE. 2019. Retraction Guidelines. https://publicationethics.org/files/retraction-guidelines.pdf (accessed September 14, 2023).Search in Google Scholar
Eckmann, P., and A. Bandrowski. 2023. “PreprintMatch: A Tool for Preprint to Publication Detection Shows Global Inequities in Scientific Publication.” PLoS One 18 (3): e0281659. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281659.Search in Google Scholar
García, J.A., R. Rodriguez-Sánchez, and J. Fdez-Valdivia. 2021a. “Benefits of Cooperative Peer Review.” https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3824655.Search in Google Scholar
García, J.A., R. Rodriguez-Sánchez, and J. Fdez-Valdivia. 2021b. “A Theory of Over-revision in Peer Review.” https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3825806.Search in Google Scholar
García, J.A., R. Rodriguez-Sánchez, and J. Fdez-Valdivia. 2021c. “Can a Paid Model for Peer Review Be Sustainable When the Author Can Decide Whether to Pay or Not?” https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3850816.Search in Google Scholar
García, J.A., R. Rodriguez-Sánchez, and J. Fdez-Valdivia. 2022a. “A Formal Study of Co-Opetition in Scholarly Publishing.” Journal of Information Science. (in press). https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515221116521.Search in Google Scholar
García, J.A., R. Rodriguez-Sánchez, and J. Fdez-Valdivia. 2022b. “Fraud, Specialization, and Efficiency in Peer Review.” Research Evaluation 31 (1): 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvab021.Search in Google Scholar
García, J.A., R. Rodriguez-Sánchez, and J. Fdez-Valdivia. 2022c. “Can a Paid Model for Peer Review Be Sustainable When the Author Can Decide Whether to Pay or Not?” Scientometrics 127 (3): 1491–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04248-8.Search in Google Scholar
Gonçalves, T., C. Curado, and M. Oliveira. 2023. “Clarifying Knowledge Withholding: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Agenda.” Journal of Business Research 157: 113600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113600.Search in Google Scholar
Klebel, T., S. Reichmann, J. Polka, G. McDowell, N. Penfold, S. Hindle, and T. Ross-Hellauer. 2020. “Peer Review and Preprint Policies are Unclear at Most Major Journals.” PLoS One 15 (10): e0239518. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239518.Search in Google Scholar
Malički, M., A. Jerončić, G. Ter Riet, L.M. Bouter, J.P.A. Ioannidis, S.N. Goodman, and I.J. Aalbersberg. 2020. “Preprint Servers’ Policies, Submission Requirements, and Transparency in Reporting and Research Integrity Recommendations.” JAMA 324 (18): 1901–3. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.17195.Search in Google Scholar
Retraction Watch database. 2023. http://retractiondatabase.org/?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 (accessed March 23, 2023).Search in Google Scholar
Sheldon, T. 2018. “Preprints Could Promote Confusion and Distortion.” Nature 559 (7715): 445. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05789-4.Search in Google Scholar
Teixeira da Silva, J.A. 2016. “Silent or Stealth Retractions, the Dangerous Voices of the Unknown, Deleted Literature.” Publishing Research Quarterly 32 (1): 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-015-9439-y.Search in Google Scholar
Teixeira da Silva, J.A. 2018. “The Preprint Debate: What are the Issues?” Medical Journal Armed Forces India 74 (2): 162–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mjafi.2017.08.002.Search in Google Scholar
Teixeira da Silva, J.A. 2021. “Silently Withdrawn or Retracted Preprints Related to Covid-19 Are a Scholarly Threat and a Potential Public Health Risk: Theoretical Arguments and Suggested Recommendations.” Online Information Review 45 (4): 751–7. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-08-2020-0371.Search in Google Scholar
Teixeira da Silva, J.A. 2022a. “Should Preprints and Peer-Reviewed Papers be Assigned Equal Status?” Journal of Visceral Surgery 159 (5): 444–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2022.08.003.Search in Google Scholar
Teixeira da Silva, J.A. 2022b. “A Synthesis of the Formats for Correcting Erroneous and Fraudulent Academic Literature, and Associated Challenges.” Journal for General Philosophy of Science 53 (4): 583–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-022-09607-4.Search in Google Scholar
Teixeira da Silva, J.A., and J. Dobránszki. 2019. “Preprint Policies Among 14 Academic Publishers.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 45 (2): 162–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2019.02.009.Search in Google Scholar
Teixeira da Silva, J.A., and Q.-H. Vuong. 2022. “Fortification of Retraction Notices to Improve Their Transparency and Usefulness.” Learned Publishing 35 (2): 292–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1409.Search in Google Scholar
© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- Editorial
- Articles
- The “Silent” Removal of Bibliometric Information of Three SSRN Preprints Related to Peer Review, and then their Full Reinstatement
- Awareness of Digital Preservation Among Pakistani Librarians
- Content Analysis of Libraries’ Instagram Posts: Cultural Collection, Activities, and Preservation of Cultural Heritage
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- Editorial
- Articles
- The “Silent” Removal of Bibliometric Information of Three SSRN Preprints Related to Peer Review, and then their Full Reinstatement
- Awareness of Digital Preservation Among Pakistani Librarians
- Content Analysis of Libraries’ Instagram Posts: Cultural Collection, Activities, and Preservation of Cultural Heritage
