Self‐correction prevents withdrawal syndrome

Boxheimer, Erica Wilfong; Pulverer, Bernd

doi:10.15252/embj.201970001

Cited by 18 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As one example, a Molecular and Cellular Biology paper was published following TPR, retracted, corrected, then republished 5 , demonstrating how the correction of the literature is becoming more complex, and not more simplified. Alternatively, addendums and editorial notes could also be appended to papers (Boxheimer and Pulverer 2019 ), but even if these are appended transparently, the corrective process becomes messy as newly needed corrections emerge. The difficulty in correcting the literature efficiently lies partly in the overlap of invalidating errors between honest error, but also incorporating errors derived from fraud and bad science (Brown et al 2018 ).…”

Section: Risks and Merits Of Several Models Aimed At Correcting The L...mentioning

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

Section: Risks and Merits Of Several Models Aimed At Correcting The L...mentioning

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

show abstract

“…Currently, retraction notices often provide vague or limited information about the reasons for retraction [84,96,97]. Terms currently in use are not used consistently: for instance, "withdrawal" is currently used in different ways [98][99][100].…”

Section: Recommend a Taxonomy Of Retraction Categories/ Classificatio...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reducing the Inadvertent Spread of Retracted Science: recommendations from the RISRS report

Schneider

Woods

Proescholdt

et al. 2022

Res Integr Peer Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Retraction is a mechanism for alerting readers to unreliable material and other problems in the published scientific and scholarly record. Retracted publications generally remain visible and searchable, but the intention of retraction is to mark them as “removed” from the citable record of scholarship. However, in practice, some retracted articles continue to be treated by researchers and the public as valid content as they are often unaware of the retraction. Research over the past decade has identified a number of factors contributing to the unintentional spread of retracted research. The goal of the Reducing the Inadvertent Spread of Retracted Science: Shaping a Research and Implementation Agenda (RISRS) project was to develop an actionable agenda for reducing the inadvertent spread of retracted science. This included identifying how retraction status could be more thoroughly disseminated, and determining what actions are feasible and relevant for particular stakeholders who play a role in the distribution of knowledge. Methods These recommendations were developed as part of a year-long process that included a scoping review of empirical literature and successive rounds of stakeholder consultation, culminating in a three-part online workshop that brought together a diverse body of 65 stakeholders in October–November 2020 to engage in collaborative problem solving and dialogue. Stakeholders held roles such as publishers, editors, researchers, librarians, standards developers, funding program officers, and technologists and worked for institutions such as universities, governmental agencies, funding organizations, publishing houses, libraries, standards organizations, and technology providers. Workshop discussions were seeded by materials derived from stakeholder interviews (N = 47) and short original discussion pieces contributed by stakeholders. The online workshop resulted in a set of recommendations to address the complexities of retracted research throughout the scholarly communications ecosystem. Results The RISRS recommendations are: (1) Develop a systematic cross-industry approach to ensure the public availability of consistent, standardized, interoperable, and timely information about retractions; (2) Recommend a taxonomy of retraction categories/classifications and corresponding retraction metadata that can be adopted by all stakeholders; (3) Develop best practices for coordinating the retraction process to enable timely, fair, unbiased outcomes; and (4) Educate stakeholders about pre- and post-publication stewardship, including retraction and correction of the scholarly record. Conclusions Our stakeholder engagement study led to 4 recommendations to address inadvertent citation of retracted research, and formation of a working group to develop the Communication of Retractions, Removals, and Expressions of Concern (CORREC) Recommended Practice. Further work will be needed to determine how well retractions are currently documented, how retraction of code and datasets impacts related publications, and to identify if retraction metadata (fails to) propagate. Outcomes of all this work should lead to ensuring retracted papers are never cited without awareness of the retraction, and that, in public fora outside of science, retracted papers are not treated as valid scientific outputs.

show abstract

“…'Withdrawal' is a term often applied to preprints, but is sometimes applied in other situations as well. For example, EMBO Press uses 'withdrawal' to refer to author-initiated retractions in the hope that the term carries less stigma than the term 'retraction' (Boxheimer & Pulverer, 2019;Oransky, 2019). Wiley uses 'withdrawal' to describe situations in which an article has been accepted and received a DOI, but has not yet been formally published; such articles are deleted, but bibliographic information is retained in most cases (Wiley, n.d.).…”

Section: Inconsistent Retraction Metadatamentioning

confidence: 99%

Recommendations from the Reducing the Inadvertent Spread of Retracted Science: Shaping a Research and Implementation Agenda Project

Schneider¹,

Woods²,

Proescholdt³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Retracted research is published work that is withdrawn, removed, or otherwise invalidated from the scientific and scholarly record. This may occur for many different reasons, which can include error, misconduct, or fraud. Retracting research is intended to stop its continued citation and use, but many retracted papers continue to be used.Retracted research that is integrated into the scientific publication network via citations—either before or after retraction—enables the inadvertent propagation of potentially unsupported or fabricated data, fundamental errors, and unreproducible results, or can lead to misattribution of results or ideas (e.g., in cases of retraction due to dual publication, plagiarism, or ownership). Research over the past decade has identified a number of factors contributing to the unintentional spread of retracted research. Many retracted papers are not marked as retracted on publisher and aggregator sites, and retracted articles may still be found in readers’ PDF libraries, including in reference management systems such as Zotero, EndNote, and Mendeley. Most publishers do not systematically surveil bibliographies of submitted manuscripts, and most editors do not query whether a citation to a retracted paper is justified. When citing retracted papers, authors frequently do not indicate retraction status in bibliographies or in-text citations.The goal of the Reducing the Inadvertent Spread of Retracted Science: Shaping a Research and Implementation Agenda (RISRS) project is to develop an actionable agenda for reducing the inadvertent spread of retracted science. This includes identifying how the gatekeepers of scientific publications can monitor and disseminate retraction status and determining what other actions are feasible and relevant.The RISRS process included an exploratory environment scan, a scoping review of empirical literature, and successive rounds of stakeholder consultation, culminating in a three-part online workshop (October 26, November 9, and November 16, 2020) that brought together a diverse body of 70 stakeholders to engage in collaborative problem solving and dialogue. Workshop discussions were seeded by materials derived from stakeholder interviews and short original discussion pieces contributed by stakeholders. The online workshop resulted in a set of recommendations to address the complexities of retracted research throughout the scholarly communications ecosystem. Recommendations were iteratively updated and developed through a series of surveys and drafts as well as at a followup meeting online February 16, 2021.The RISRS team solicited feedback from presentations to NISOPlus, the Society for Scholarly Publishing, and the European Association of Science Editors. Implementation actions have started through a COPE task force on taxonomy and discussions about a proposed National Information Standards Organization (NISO) Work Item. We welcome your feedback via the project website https://infoqualitylab.org/projects/risrs2020/ or by email to jodi@illinois.edu. We encourage you to disseminate these recommendations and to envision how you, in your role, and in collaborative partnerships, can make a difference. For instance, you might help form a professional working group to further develop or refine these recommendations; present about retraction and related issues at professional and academic meetings; take on an implementation or policy project; or outline further research to be conducted. Recommendations1. Develop a systematic cross-industry approach to ensure the public availability of consistent, standardized, interoperable, and timely information about retractions.2. Recommend a taxonomy of retraction categories/classifications and corresponding retraction metadata that can be adopted by all stakeholders.3. Develop best practices for coordinating the retraction process to enable timely, fair, unbiased outcomes.4. Educate stakeholders about publication correction processes including retraction and about pre- and post-publication stewardship of the scholarly record.

show abstract

Self‐correction prevents withdrawal syndrome

Abstract: The scientific research paper remains the primary mode for documenting scholarly achievement in a stable, citable manner, yet the toolkit that allows for changes and corrections to research papers limits the optimal dissemination of reliable research findings.

Cited by 18 publications

References 7 publications

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

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

Reducing the Inadvertent Spread of Retracted Science: recommendations from the RISRS report

Recommendations from the Reducing the Inadvertent Spread of Retracted Science: Shaping a Research and Implementation Agenda Project

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About