Retraction in academic publishing

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

In

published paper in an academic journal is flagged for being seriously flawed to the extent that their results and conclusions can no longer be relied upon. Retracted articles are not removed from the published literature but marked as retracted. In some cases it may be necessary to remove an article from publication, such as when the article is clearly defamatory, violates personal privacy, is the subject of a court order, or might pose a serious health risk to the general public.[1]

Procedure

A retraction may be initiated by the editors of a journal, or by the author(s) of the papers (or their institution). Retractions are typically accompanied by a retraction notice written by the editors or authors explaining the reason for the retraction. Such notices may also include a note from the authors with apologies for the previous error and/or expressions of gratitude to persons who disclosed the error to the author.[2] Retractions must not be confused with small corrections in published articles.

There have been numerous examples of retracted scientific publications. Retraction Watch provides updates on new retractions, and discusses general issues in relation to retractions.[3][4]

History

A 2011 paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics attempted to quantify retraction rates in

Jan Hendrik Schön fabricated results in 15 retracted papers in the dataset he reviewed, all of which were retracted in 2002 and 2003, "so he alone was responsible for 56% of papers retracted for fraud in 2002—2003" (p 252).[5]

During the COVID-19 pandemic, academia had seen a quick increase in fast-track peer-review articles dealing with SARS-CoV-2 problems.[8] As a result, a number of papers have been retracted made "Retraction Tsunami"[9] due to quality and/or data issues, leading many experts to ponder not just the quality of peer review but also standards of retraction practices.[10]

Retracted studies may continue to be cited. This may happen in cases where scholars are unaware of the retraction, in particular when the retraction occurs long after the original publication.[11]

The number of journal articles being retracted had risen from about 1,600 in 2013 to 10,000 in 2023. Most of the retractions in 2023 were contributed by the Hindawi Journal.[12]

Alternative versions of retraction

Retraction with replacement

A low percentage of retracted papers can be due to unintentional error within the author(s) work. Rather than removing the entire article, retraction with replacement has been a new practice to help authors avoid being seen as dishonest for mistakes that were not purposefully done.[13] This method allows the author to fix their mistakes from the original paper, and submit an edited version to take the original paper’s place. The journal can decide to retract the original paper then upload the fixed version online, usually with a notice placed stating “Retraction and Replacement,” or “Correction,” on the article page. For example, JAMA will post the edited version with a retraction and replacement notice, along with a link to the original article, while Research Evaluation will use the term "correction" with a link posted on the updated article, referring to the old article.

Self-retraction

Self-retraction is a request from an author and/or co-authors to retract its own work from being published. Self-retraction by an author is recommended because once it gets retracted from the journal, then it can affect the author(s) because investigations can begin which will have an effect the author's reputation. If one retracts their own work on their terms, it would show more integrity and honesty as they are owning up to their own mistakes,[14] just like the authors mentioned in The Wall Street Journal have done . Scientists at times have been asked to retract their work even though their work is exact and bold; the root cause of the problem should be looked into to avoid retractions.[14] A system to distinguish papers from "good" and "bad" would be beneficial to researchers. This system may save the reputation of scientists and researchers. Most researchers publish honest work and sometimes simple mistakes happen to be overlooked by the peer review process. Retraction should not be for simple spelling errors, but for inaccurate, skewed, and fraudulent data. For example, today new technologies are being developed in a culture of transparency to align the opportunity to record false claims.[14] Another solution is for researchers to use a term “self-citation” since citations look identical therefore they are classified in databases.[14] Recommending a same database to evaluate the researchers own work can help lessen retractions.

Notable retractions

Retraction for error

  • 2013 - Study on the
    New England Journal of Medicine and widely covered by media was retracted due to unreported non-random assignments. This was part of a larger effort verifying proper randomization in thousands of studies by anesthesiologist John Carlisle, who found problems in about 2% of those analyzed.[6]
  • 2012 -
    RoundUp retracted due to criticism of experimental design. According to the editor of the journal, a "more in-depth look at the raw data revealed that no definitive conclusions can be reached with this small sample size".[15]
  • 2003 Retracted
    Retracted article on neurotoxicity of ecstasy
    .

Retraction for fraud or misconduct

Retraction for ethical violations

  • 2019 An article by Wendy Rogers (Macquarie University, Australia) and colleagues on BMJ Open called for the mass retraction of more than 400 scientific papers on organ transplantation, amid fears the organs were obtained unethically from Chinese prisoners.[37] Wendy Rogers said the journals, researchers and clinicians who used these studies were complicit in these methods of organ trafficking. According to the study, the transplant research community has failed to live up to the ethical standards for using organs from death row inmates that are still being published. These widespread unethical violations in research will cause many unpredictable consequences for science.[38] In 2019, PLOS ONE also retracted 21 articles related to this incident.[39][40]
  • 2017 The journal Liver International retracted a Chinese study of liver transplantation because 564 livers grafted in the course of the research over 4 years could not be traced. The experts pointed out that it was implausible a hospital could have so many freely donated livers for transplantation, given the small number of donors in China at the time.[41]

Retraction over data provenance

  • 2020 On 22 May 2020, during the
    ventricular arrhythmia.[42] Medical researchers and newspapers expressed suspicions about the validity of the data, provided by Surgisphere, which is founded by one of the authors of the study.[43] The article was formally retracted by 4 June 2020, on request by the lead author Mandeep Mehra.[44][42]

Retraction over public relations issues

See also

References

  1. ^ "Retraction guidelines". COPE: Committee on Publication Ethics. Retrieved 2023-05-28.
  2. .
  3. .
  4. ^ Strauss, Stephen (April 7, 2011). "Searching for truth in published research". CBC News.
  5. ^
    S2CID 23257392
    .
  6. ^ a b McCook, Alison (June 13, 2018). "Errors Trigger Retraction Of Study On Mediterranean Diet's Heart Benefits". NPR.
  7. ^ "Two Cheers for the Retraction Boom". The New Atlantis. Retrieved 2023-11-01.
  8. S2CID 219529301
    .
  9. .
  10. .
  11. .
  12. ^ Noorden, Richard Van (12 December 2023). "More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 — a new record". Nature. Archived from the original on 13 December 2023. Retrieved 15 December 2023.
  13. S2CID 4608954
    .
  14. ^ .
  15. .
  16. ^ Wu, Qiushi; Lu, Kangjie (2021-04-26). "Retraction of paper" (PDF). Retrieved 2021-05-02.
  17. ^ Mats Heimdahl; Loren Terveen (2021-04-27). "Response Linux Foundation". Letter to Linux Foundation Leadership. University of Minnesota, Department of Computer Science & Engineering. Retrieved 2021-05-02.
  18. S2CID 212885229
    . Retrieved 2022-04-19.
  19. .
  20. .
  21. ^ Mayo, Nick (2019-04-12). "Articles pulled after data fabrication in Cambridge DNA lab". Times Higher Education. Retrieved 2023-09-18.
  22. ^ Hou, Chia-Yi (2019-04-12). "Nature and Science Retractions Connected to Research Misconduct". The Scientist Magazine. Retrieved 2023-09-19.
  23. ^ "Cornell finds that food marketing researcher Brian Wansink committed misconduct, as he announces retirement". Retraction Watch. 2018-09-20. Retrieved 2018-09-22.
  24. ^ "A Prominent Researcher on Eating Habits Resigned After a Scandal Over His Studies". Time Inc. 2018-09-21. Retrieved 2018-09-22.
  25. ^ "This Ivy League food scientist was a media darling. He just submitted his resignation, the school says". The Washington Post. 2018-09-20. Retrieved 2018-09-22.
  26. ^ "JAMA journals retract six papers by food marketing researcher Brian Wansink". Retraction Watch. 2018-09-19. Retrieved 2018-09-22.
  27. ^ Oransky, Ivan (2018-12-05). "The Joy of Cooking, vindicated: Journal retracts two more Brian Wansink papers". Retraction Watch. Retrieved 2018-12-05.
  28. ^ "Retraction Watch Database - Brian Wansink". Retraction Watch. Retrieved 2019-01-22.
  29. ^ Elaine Lies (4 June 2014). "Japan researcher agrees to withdraw disputed stem cell paper". Reuters. Retrieved 4 June 2014.
  30. ^ "STAP paper co-author Sasai commits suicide". The Japan Times. Retrieved 5 August 2014.
  31. ^ "Misconduct in science: An array of errors". The Economist. 10 September 2011.
  32. S2CID 26364726
    .
  33. PMID 20142376
    .
  34. . Retrieved 2023-10-04.
  35. .
  36. . (Retracted)
  37. ^ "Call for retraction of 400 scientific papers amid fears organs came from Chinese prisoners". the Guardian. 2019-02-05. Retrieved 2022-04-14.
  38. PMID 30723071
    .
  39. ^ Oransky, Ivan (2020-04-15). "Journals have retracted or flagged more than 40 papers from China that appear to have used organ transplants from executed prisoners". Retraction Watch. Retrieved 2022-04-15.
  40. S2CID 201116938
    .
  41. .
  42. ^ from the original on 2020-06-07. Retrieved 2020-06-07.
  43. ^ Boseley, Sarah (2020-06-04). "How were medical journals and WHO caught out over hydroxychloroquine?". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2020-06-07.
  44. ^ Boseley, Sarah; Davey, Melissa (2020-06-04). "Covid-19: Lancet retracts paper that halted hydroxychloroquine trials". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2020-06-07. Retrieved 2020-06-07.
  45. PMID 26730579
    . (Retracted)
  46. ^ "Reviewing #Creatorgate: Is God a Scientific Proposition? - Articles". BioLogos. Retrieved 2022-01-03.

Further reading