In academic publishing, a retraction is a mechanism by which the content of a paper published in an academic journal is disavowed so that its results and conclusions can no longer be relied upon. Retracted articles are not usually removed from the published literature but marked as retracted. In some rare cases a retracted article may be removed from publication, such as if it is defamatory, breaches copyright, violates personal privacy, is the subject of a court order, or might pose a health risk to the public. The purpose of retraction is to correct the literature and ensure its integrity, not to punish the authors. Detailed guideline on retraction have been published. [1] Papers are typically retracted as seriously flawed and essentially incorrect, due to error or misdeeds, as distinct from small corrections to published articles.
Although the majority of retractions in biomedical and life sciences are linked to scientific misconduct, [2] they are often cited as evidence of the self-correcting nature of science. [3] However, some scholars argue this view is misleading, describing it as a myth. [4] A retraction may simply be due to a paper later being found to be in serious error, as in the historical case of Benjamin Wilson's 1756 paper, discussed below.
A retraction may be initiated by the editors of a journal, by the author(s) of the paper, or by their institution. Retractions are typically accompanied by a retraction notice written by the editors or authors explaining the reason for the retraction. Such notices may also include a note from the authors with apologies for the previous error and/or expressions of gratitude to persons who disclosed the error to the author. [5]
There have been many cases of retraction of scientific publications. Retraction Watch provides updates on new retractions, and discusses general issues in relation to retractions. [6] [7]
The earliest recorded retraction in a scholarly, peer-reviewed scientific publication [8] is "A Retraction, by Mr. Benjamin Wilson, F.R.S. of his former Opinion, concerning the Explication of the Leyden Experiment," published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society on 24 June 1756. In it, Benjamin Wilson, a British painter and scientist, formally withdrew his previous explanation of the Leyden jar experiment, a foundational study in the field of electricity, on the grounds that subsequent discoveries, particularly those by Benjamin Franklin, had shown his original interpretation to be incorrect. [9]
A 2011 paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics attempted to quantify retraction rates in PubMed over time to determine if the rate was increasing, even while taking into account the increased number of overall publications occurring each year. [10] The author found that the rate of increase in retractions was greater than the rate of increase in publications. Moreover, the author notes the following:
"It is particularly striking that the number of papers retracted for fraud increased more than sevenfold in the 6 years between 2004 and 2009. During the same period, the number of papers retracted for a scientific mistake did not even double..." (p. 251). [10]
Although the author suggests that his findings may indeed indicate a recent increase in scientific fraud, he also acknowledges other possibilities. For example, increased rates of fraud in recent years may simply indicate that journals are doing a better job of policing the scientific literature than they have in the past. Furthermore, because retractions occur for a very small percentage of overall publications (fewer than 1 in 1,000 articles [11] [12] ), a few scientists who are willing to commit large amounts of fraud can highly impact retraction rates. For example, the author points out that Jan Hendrik Schön fabricated results in 15 retracted papers in the dataset he reviewed, all of which were retracted in 2002 and 2003, "so he alone was responsible for 56% of papers retracted for fraud in 2002—2003" (p 252). [10]
During the COVID-19 pandemic, academia had seen a quick increase in fast-track peer-review articles dealing with SARS-CoV-2 problems. [13] As a result, a large number of papers have been retracted [14] due to quality and/or data issues, leading many experts to consider both the quality of peer review, as well as the standards of retraction practices. [15]
Retracted studies may continue to be cited. This may happen in cases where scholars are unaware of the retraction, in particular when the retraction occurs long after the original publication. [16]
The number of journal articles being retracted had risen from about 1,600 in 2013 to 10,000 in 2023. Most of the retractions in 2023 were contributed by Hindawi journals. [17] The significant number of retractions involving Chinese co-authors—over 17,000 since 2021, including 8,000 from Hindawi journals—has led China to launch a nationwide audit addressing retractions and research misconduct. [18] Retractions are also measured among highly cited researchers. [19]
A low percentage of retracted papers can be due to unintentional error within the author(s)' work. Rather than removing the entire article, retraction with replacement has been a new practice to help authors avoid being seen as dishonest for incorrect content due to error rather than intention. [20] Retraction with replacement allows the author to correct their mistakes in the original paper before submitting an edited version to replace it. The journal can then decide to retract the original paper before uploading the corrected version online, usually with a notice on the article page.
Self-retraction is a request from a paper's authors to retract their own work from being published. Self-retraction by an author is preferable to a retraction and subsequent investigation from the journal, which may harm the author's reputation; it also shows integrity on the part of the authors. [21]