Authors Disagreeing with Retractions: A Growing Procedural Concern?

Jaime Teixeira da Silva

doi:10.5294/pebi.2023.27.2.6

Authors

Jaime Teixeira da Silva Author Independent researcher https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3299-2772

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5294/pebi.2023.27.2.6

Keywords:

COPE, fraud, opacity versus transparency, post-publication peer review, protocol, retraction of publication

Abstract

Several studies have already documented a lack of transparency in retraction notices (RNs), which often omit important information that would allow readers to appreciate the entire process’s intricacies, including those involved and the reasons leading up to the retrac-tion. One issue rarely discussed in the academic literature is authors’ disagreement with retractions, the wording of RNs, or retractions themselves. In this paper, using six examples of retractions and their respective RNs across journals and/or publishers, all COPE members, a reflection is offered as to why this issue needs a more intense debate and greater procedural clarity by editors, journals, and publishers.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Vuong Q-H. The limitations of retraction notices and the he-roic acts of authors who correct the scholarly record: An analy-sis of retractions of papers published from 1975 to 2019. Lear-ned Publ. 2020; 33(2):119–130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1282

Teixeira da Silva JA, Al-Khatib A, Dobránszki J. Fortifying the corrective nature of post-publication peer review: identifying weakness, use of journal clubs, and rewarding conscientious behavior. Sci Eng Ethics. 2017;23(4):1213–1226. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9854-2

Bordignon F. Self-correction of science: A comparative stu-dy of negative citations and post-publication peer review. Scientometrics. 2020;124(2):1225–1239. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1007/s11192-020-03536-z

Teixeira da Silva JA, Vuong, Q-H. Fortification of retraction notices to improve their transparency and usefulness. Lear-ned Publ. 2022;35(2):292–299. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1409

Hu G-W, Xu S-X. Agency and responsibility: A linguis-tic analysis of culpable acts in retraction notices. Lin-gua. 2020;247:102954. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lin-gua.2020.102954

Rivera H, Teixeira da Silva JA. Retractions, fake peer review, and paper mills. J Kor Med Sci. 2021; 36(24):e165. DOI: http://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2021.36.e165

Al-Khatib A, Teixeira da Silva JA. What rights do authors have? Sci Eng Ethics. 2017;23(3):947–949. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1007/s11948-016-9808-8

Dabbous HM, El-Sayed MH, El Assal G, Elghazaly H, Ebeid FFS, Sherief AF, et al. Safety and efficacy of favipiravir versus hydroxychloroquine in management of COVID-19: A rando-mised controlled trial. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):7282. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-85227-0; retraction: 2021;11(1): 18983. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-98683-5

Cheng S, Xia B, Li H, Li Y, Lv X, Zhang Y, et al. Long non-coding RNA SATB2-AS1 inhibits microRNA-155-3p to suppress breast cancer cell growth by promoting breast cancer metastasis sup-pressor 1-like. Cancer Cell Int. 2020;20:321. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1186/s12935-020-01411-8; retraction: 2021;21(1):104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12935-021-01798-y

Huang Q, Wei J, Wei L, Zhang X, Bai F, Wen S, et al. Role of RKIP in human hepatic stellate cell proliferation, inva-sion, and metastasis. J Cell Biochem. 2019;120(4):6168–6177. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jcb.27904; retraction: 2021;122(11):1764. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jcb.30129

Li D, Zhou Q, Hu G, Wang G. MiRNA-506 inhibits rheu-matoid arthritis fibroblast-like synoviocytes proliferation and induces apoptosis by targeting [sic] TLR4. Biosci Rep. 2019;39(5): BSR20182500. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1042/BSR20182500; retraction: 2021;41(7):BSR-2018-2500_RET. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1042/BSR-2018-2500_RET

Janardhanan A, Sadanand A, Vanisree AJ. Nardosta-chys jatamansi targets BDNF-TrkB to alleviate ketami-ne-induced schizophrenia-like symptoms in rats. Neu-ropsychobiology. 2016;74(2):104–114. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1159/000454985; retraction: 2022;81(1):83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000519064

Ahmad N, Ahmad R, Almakhamel MZ, Ansari K, Amir M, Ahmad W, et al. A comparative pulmonary pharmacokinetic study of budesonide using polymeric nanoparticles targeted to the lungs in treatment of asthma. Artificial Cells Nanomed Biotechnol. 2020;48(1):749–762. DOI: https://doi.org/10.108 0/21691401.2020.1748640; retraction: 2020;48(1):1330. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21691401.2020.1842985

Else H, Van Noorden R. The fight against fake-paper factories that churn out sham science. Nature. 2021;591(7851):516–519. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-00733-5

Teixeira da Silva JA, Vuong Q-H. Do legitimate publishers pro-fit from error, misconduct or fraud? Exchanges. 2021;8(3):55–68. DOI: http://doi.org/10.31273/eirj.v8i3.785

Teixeira da Silva JA. Is the validity, credibility and reliability of literature indexed in PubMed at risk? Med J Armed For-ces India 2023; 79(5):601–602. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.mjafi.2021.03.009

Oransky I, Fremes SE, Kurlansky P, Gaudino M. Retrac-tions in medicine: The tip of the iceberg. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(41):4205–4206. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eur-heartj/ehab398

Teixeira da Silva JA, Al-Khatib A. Ending the retraction stigma: encouraging the reporting of errors in the biomedi-cal record. Res Ethics. 2021;17(2):251–259. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1747016118802970

Xu SB, Hu G. Retraction stigma and its communication via re-traction notices. Minerva. 2022;60(3):349–374. DOI: https://doi.org/10.100711024-022-09465-w

Hu G, Xu SB. Why research retraction due to misconduct should be stigmatized. Publications. 2023;11:18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/publications11010018

Xu SB, Hu G. A cross-disciplinary and severity-based stu-dy of author-related reasons for retraction. Account Res. 2022;29(8):512–536. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2021.1952870