Doing the Right Thing: A Qualitative Investigation of Retractions Due to Unintentional Error

Abstract

Retractions solicited by authors following the discovery of an unintentional error-what we henceforth call a "self-retraction"-are a new phenomenon of growing importance, about which very little is known. Here we present results of a small qualitative study aimed at gaining preliminary insights about circumstances, motivations and beliefs that accompanied the experience of a self-retraction. We identified retraction notes that unambiguously reported an honest error and that had been published between the years 2010 and 2015. We limited our sample to retractions with at least one co-author based in the Netherlands, Belgium, United Kingdom, Germany or a Scandinavian country, and we invited these authors to a semi-structured interview. Fourteen authors accepted our invitation. Contrary to our initial assumptions, most of our interviewees had not originally intended to retract their paper. They had contacted the journal to request a correction and the decision to retract had been made by journal editors. All interviewees reported that having to retract their own publication made them concerned for their scientific reputation and career, often causing considerable stress and anxiety. Interviewees also encountered difficulties in communicating with the journal and recalled other procedural issues that had unnecessarily slowed down the process of self-retraction. Intriguingly, however, all interviewees reported how, contrary to their own expectations, the self-retraction had brought no damage to their reputation and in some cases had actually improved it. We also examined the ethical motivations that interviewees ascribed, retrospectively, to their actions and found that such motivations included a combination of moral and prudential (i.e. pragmatic) considerations. These preliminary results suggest that scientists would welcome innovations to facilitate the process of self-retraction.

The limitations of retraction notices and the heroic acts of authors who correct the scholarly record: An analysis of retractions of papers published from 1975 to 2019

“…In certain cases, the editors' decisions to retract a paper upon a correction request from the authors also made the authors worried about their careers (Hosseini, Hilhorst, de Beaufort, & Fanelli, 2018). Worse still, the stigma associated with retraction is continually reinforced by the obscurity in which many articles are retracted (Noorden, 2011); the automatic classification of 'research misconduct article', such as in the KCI (Korea Citation Index; Park et al, 2018); or the difficulties in communication between the authors and the journals (Hosseini et al, 2018). Retraction notices that do not truthfully report the cause increase the likelihood that the reason is attributed to misconduct.…”

Improving the integrity of published science: An expanded taxonomy of retractions and corrections

“…Journal editors and scientists who proactively retract publications that were flawed due to honest error should be held as exemplars of research integrity. Instead, research suggests that these individuals typically feel discouraged from “doing the right thing”, due to the perceived stigma of fraud or incompetence associated with retractions and to the perceived career costs of losing a publication . To overcome this resistance to retract and correct publications, retractions that are “virtuous” should be immediately recognizable by the scientific community.…”

“…Individuals who proactively amend the literature should be credited, and those engaging in misconduct and gross negligence should incur fair and proportionate reputational costs. Research suggests that the scientific community will readily administer tacit, informal and even formal credit to scientists who “do the right thing” . Therefore, we believe that journal policies and practices should provide maximally complete, transparent and reliable information concerning all aspects of an amendment.…”

“…Research suggests that the scientific community will readily administer tacit, informal and even formal credit to scientists who "do the right thing". 8 Therefore, we believe that journal policies and practices should provide maximally complete, transparent and reliable information concerning all aspects of an amendment.…”

“…Instead, research suggests that these individuals typically feel discouraged from "doing the right thing", due to the perceived stigma of fraud or incompetence associated with retractions and to the perceived career costs of losing a publication. 8 To overcome this resistance to retract and correct publications, retractions that are "virtuous" should be immediately recognizable by the scientific community. To achieve this goal, several similar proposals have been made, which include instituting a new "withdrawal" withdrawal" and "withdrawal with cause" 10 or using authorship policies to mark out "self-" from "nonself-" retractions.…”