Authors Disagreeing with Retractions: A Growing Procedural Concern?

Jaime Teixeira da Silva

doi:10.5294/pebi.2023.27.2.6

Autores

Jaime Teixeira da Silva Autor Investigador independente https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3299-2772

DOI:

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

Palavras-chave:

COPE, fraude, opacidade versus transparência, revisão por pares pós-publicação, protocolo, retratação de publicação

Resumo

Diversos estudos já documentaram a falta de transparência nos avisos de retratação (AdR) que muitas vezes omitem informações vitais que permitiriam ao leitor apreciar as complexidades de todo o processo, incluindo os envolvidos e os motivos que levaram à retratação em si. Um tema específico que raramente é discutido na literatura acadêmica é a discordância dos autores com as retratações, com a redação dos AdRs ou com as próprias retratações. Neste artigo, por meio de seis exemplos de retratações e seus respectivos AdRs em diferentes periódicos e/ou editoras, todos membros do Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), uma reflexão sobre esse tema é oferecida, além de ser evidenciada a necessidade de maior debate e clareza de procedimento por parte de editores, periódicos e editoras.

Downloads

Não há dados estatísticos.

Referências

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