Agency and responsibility: A linguistic analysis of culpable acts in retraction notices

Hu, Guangwei; Xu, Shaoxiong Brian

doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102954

Cited by 15 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the spirit of Vuong's (2019) call for heroic retractions, self‐retraction of affected publications should be promoted. It must be admitted, however, that it is not in researchers' personal interest to proactively self‐retract their affected publications because of negative consequences of retraction, such as retraction stigma (Teixeira da Silva & Al‐Khatib, 2021), damage to academic image (Hu & Xu, 2020; Xu & Hu, 2018, 2021), reduced publication counts, citation penalty (Azoulay et al, 2017; Lu et al, 2013), and decreased opportunities for funding, promotion, and other benefits (Stern et al, 2014).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, these studies lacked a fine‐grained classification of accountable entities, focusing on only two types of entity (i.e., authors and journal authorities). Although Hu and Xu (2020) included an additional category (i.e., both authors and journal authorities), their study was based on a relatively small dataset. Furthermore, the previous studies (e.g., Grieneisen & Zhang, 2012; Hu & Xu, 2020; van Leeuwen & Luwel, 2014) did not investigate accountable entities in relation to reasons for retraction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Non‐author entities accountable for retractions: A diachronic and cross‐disciplinary exploration of reasons for retraction

2022

Learned Publishing

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Retraction notices are expected to be transparent about entities accountable for retractions and their reasons for retraction. No previous research on retraction notices has investigated accountable entities other than authors of retracted publications and their reasons for retraction from a cross-disciplinary and a diachronic perspective. Drawing on a dataset of 7650 unique retraction notices published before 2020 and indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection, this study identified 457 retraction notices that held four types of non-author entities accountable. Journal authorities (i.e., editors and publishers) were found responsible for retractions in 62.14% of the retraction notices, followed by unidentifiable entities (26.91%), third parties (6.13%), and dual entities (i.e., both authors and journal authorities, 4.81%). The three most frequent reasons for retraction were republication of valid publications (36.76%), unspecified reasons (26.91%), and publication of unpublishable work (17.07%).Accountable non-author entities were more identifiable in the retraction notices published between 2010 and 2019 than in those published before 2010. Retraction notices in soft disciplines were more likely than those in hard disciplines to identify journal authorities as accountable entities.These findings offer implications for handling retractions more effectively and efficiently.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non‐author entities accountable for retractions: A diachronic and cross‐disciplinary exploration of reasons for retraction

2022

Learned Publishing

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This paper assumes that insufficiently preventive measures to reduce the risk of publishing erroneous literature were not taken, leading to a need to correct it. Even though authors’ intentions might be mentioned in retraction notices (Andersen and Wray 2019 ), there is considerable inter-journal and inter-publisher variability in the content of retraction notices (Teixeira da Silva and Vuong 2022 ), lack of clarity regarding the authorship of those notices (Xu and Hu 2018 ), unclear distribution of responsibility between or among authors despite the existence of authorship responsibility statements (Andersen and Wray 2021 ), as well as euphemistic language (Hu and Xu 2020 ). These shortcomings of retraction notices currently renders them as an unreliable tool of correction of the literature, since many lack details and transparency.…”

Section: Post-publication Peer Review As a Corrective Mechanismmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Synthesis of the Formats for Correcting Erroneous and Fraudulent Academic Literature, and Associated Challenges

Silva

2022

J Gen Philos Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Academic publishing is undergoing a highly transformative process, and many established rules and value systems that are in place, such as traditional peer review (TPR) and preprints, are facing unprecedented challenges, including as a result of post-publication peer review. The integrity and validity of the academic literature continue to rely naively on blind trust, while TPR and preprints continue to fail to effectively screen out errors, fraud, and misconduct. Imperfect TPR invariably results in imperfect papers that have passed through varying levels of rigor of screening and validation. If errors or misconduct were not detected during TPR’s editorial screening, but are detected at the post-publication stage, an opportunity is created to correct the academic record. Currently, the most common forms of correcting the academic literature are errata, corrigenda, expressions of concern, and retractions or withdrawals. Some additional measures to correct the literature have emerged, including manuscript versioning, amendments, partial retractions and retract and replace. Preprints can also be corrected if their version is updated. This paper discusses the risks, benefits and limitations of these forms of correcting the academic literature. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10838-022-09607-4.

show abstract

“…Although a journal may retract a publication, the communication of that retraction is often incomplete, both in the use of vague retraction notices with euphemistic language [37][38][39], and in the inconsistent and ineffective annotation of retracted publications [40,41].…”

Section: Why Is a Publication's Retracted Status Often Not Acknowledg...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reducing the residue of retractions in evidence synthesis: Ways to minimize inappropriate citation and use of retracted data

Bakker¹,

Boughton²,

Faggion³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The incorporation of publications that have been retracted is a risk in reliable evidence synthesis. Retraction is an important mechanism for correcting the literature and protecting its integrity. Within the medical literature, the continued citation of retracted publications occurs for a variety of reasons. Recent evidence suggests that systematic reviews and meta-analyses often unwittingly cite retracted publications which, at least in some cases, may significantly impact quantitative effect estimates in meta-analyses. There is strong evidence that authors of systematic reviews and meta-analyses may be unaware of the retracted status of publications and treat them as if they are not retracted. These problems are difficult to address for several reasons: identifying retracted publications is important but logistically challenging; publications may be retracted while a review is in preparation or in press; and problems with a publication may also be discovered after the evidence synthesis is published. We propose a set of concrete actions that stakeholders (e.g., scientists, peer-reviewers, journal editors) might take in the near-term, and that research funders, citation management systems, and databases and search engines might take in the longer term to limit the impact of retracted primary studies on evidence syntheses.

show abstract

Agency and responsibility: A linguistic analysis of culpable acts in retraction notices

Cited by 15 publications

References 51 publications

Non‐author entities accountable for retractions: A diachronic and cross‐disciplinary exploration of reasons for retraction

Non‐author entities accountable for retractions: A diachronic and cross‐disciplinary exploration of reasons for retraction

A Synthesis of the Formats for Correcting Erroneous and Fraudulent Academic Literature, and Associated Challenges

Reducing the residue of retractions in evidence synthesis: Ways to minimize inappropriate citation and use of retracted data

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About