Retractions in Academic Discourse: From Stigma to the Culture of Responsibility in Science

Introduction. The increase in retractions of research articles is associated with the growth of publication activity and additional control over the quality of research, but this process is accompanied by negative stigmatization of authors. Discussions around retractions affect not only the issues of scientific ethics of authors, but also reputational risks for researchers and publishers.

The purpose of the current article is to analyze the main reasons for retraction and typical policies of scientific journals on the implementation of the retraction process; to identify factors contributing to the stigmatization of authors whose works have been retracted, as well as ways to change the scientific culture aimed at reducing the negative impact of retractions.

Journal policies on retraction. It highlights how scientific journals manage the retraction process, including the use of different notions, such as "partial retraction" or "self-retraction", which can mitigate the consequences of retraction.

The stigmatization of retraction and its consequences for scientific knowledge. The negative effects of retractions on authors, including loss of trust among colleagues, reduced chances of receiving grants, and reputational damage, are discussed. The problem of uneven approach to retractions depending on the reason for retraction is considered.

Retraction culture. Recommendations for creating a more transparent and constructive retraction system that would facilitate the correction of scientific literature without stigmatizing authors who have made errors in their work are summarized.

Conclusion. The authors of the article emphasize the need to change the current academic culture, in which retractions are perceived as a stigmatizing factor. It is proposed to revise the retraction policy, make it more transparent and fair, and introduce a system of incentives for authors for timely correction of errors. This will strengthen trust in the scientific process and create conditions for a more responsible approach to publication ethics.

1. Тихонова, Е. В., & Кириллова, О. В. (2022). Культура цитирования: поведение цитирующих авторов vs доверие к результатам научных исследований. Научный редактор и издатель, 7(2), 166–181. https://doi.org/10.24069/SEP-22-58

2. Тихонова, Е. В., Косычева, М. А., & Мекеко, Н. М. (2023). Академическая культура вуза: формирование продуктивной среды для развития и профессионализации: монография. М.: РГБУ.

3. Almeida, R. M. V., de Albuquerque Rocha, K., Catelani, F., Fontes-Pereira, A. J., & Vasconcelos, S. M. (2015). Plagiarism allegations account for most retractions in major Latin American/Caribbean databases. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22, 1447–1456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9694-0

4. Bar-Ilan, J., & Halevi, G. (2018). Temporal characteristics of retracted articles. Scientometrics, 116, 1771–1783. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2802-y

5. Cagney, H., Horton, R., James, A., Sabine Kleinert, Nyakoojo, Z., Pryce, L., Grainger, E., Stanley, D., & Wang, H. (2016). Retraction and republication – a new tool for correcting the scientific record. European Science Editing, 42(1), 3-7.

6. Chaddah, P. (2014). Not all plagiarism requires a retraction. Nature, 511, 127. https://doi.org/10.1038/511127a

7. Christiansen, S., & Flanagin, A. (2017). Correcting the medical literature: “To err is human, to correct divine”. JAMA, 318(9), 804–805. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.11833

8. Fanelli, D. (2016). Set up a ‘self-retraction’ system for honest errors. Nature, 531(7595), 415.

9. da Silva, J. A. T., & Bornemann-Cimenti, H. (2017). Why do some retracted papers continue to be cited? Scientometrics, 110(1), 365–370.

10. Debnath, J., Debnath, D., & Patrikar, S. (2023). Vexatious and euphemistic affairs in retractions of scientific publications: A pilot study. Medical Journal, Armed Forces India. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mjafi.2023.07.005

11. Fang, F. C., & Casadevall, A. (2011). Retracted science and the retraction index. Infection and Immunity, 79(10), 3855–3859. https://doi.org/10.1128/IAI.05661-11

12. Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(42), 17028–17033. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212247109

13. Hamilton, D. G. (2019). Continued citation of retracted radiation oncology literature—Do we have a problem? International Journal of Radiation OncologyBiologyPhysics, 103(5), 1036–1042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.11.014

14. Hsiao, T.-K., & Schneider, J. (2021). Continued use of retracted papers: Temporal trends in citations and (lack of) awareness of retractions shown in citation contexts in biomedicine. Quantitative Science Studies, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00155

15. Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

16. Lu, S. F., Jin, G. Z., Uzzi, B., & Jones, B. (2013). The retraction penalty: Evidence from the Web of Science. Scientific Reports, 3, 3146.

17. Marcus, A., & Oransky, I. (2014). What studies of retractions tell us. Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education, 15(2), 151-154.

18. Kochetkov, D. (2024, September 8). Post-publication review: Evolution of the scientific publishing workflow [Постпубликационное рецензирование: развитие научно-издательского процесса]. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/zsqhn

19. Koo, M., & Lin, S.-C. (2024). Retracted articles in scientific literature: A bibliometric analysis from 2003 to 2022 using the Web of Science. Heliyon, e38620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e38620

20. Steen, R. G. (2011). Retractions in the scientific literature: Is the incidence of research fraud increasing? Journal of Medical Ethics, 37(4), 249–253. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2010.040923

21. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2022). A synthesis of the formats for correcting erroneous and fraudulent academic literature, and associated challenges. Journal for General Philosophy of Science = Zeitschrift fur Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie, 53(4), 583–599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-022-09607-4

22. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2016). Silent or stealth retractions, the dangerous voices of the unknown, deleted literature. Publishing Research Quarterly, 32, 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-015-9439-y

23. Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Al-Khatib, A. (2021). Ending the retraction stigma: Encouraging the reporting of errors in the biomedical record. Research Ethics, 17(2), 251–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016118802970

24. Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Dobránszki, J. (2017). Notices and policies for retractions, expressions of concern, errata and corrigenda: Their importance, content, and context. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23, 521–554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9769-y

25. Trikalinos, N. A., Evangelou, E., & Ioannidis, J. P. (2008). Falsified papers in high-impact journals were slow to retract and indistinguishable from nonfraudulent papers. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61(5), 464–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.019

26. Wager, L. (2015). Why are retractions so difficult? Science Editor, 2(1), 32–34. https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.34