Retractions in Science

Publication plays a pivotal role in the growth and dissemination of scientific knowledge. But the growth of knowledge is neither strictly linear nor unidirectional. Mistakes are made. Retraction is one means by which the scientific record is corrected. In this paper, we examine the retraction practices and prevalence in the journal Science. We focus on 35 years of published retractions, from 1983 to 2017. We are not only concerned with determining the scope of the problem, but also the patterns in the data. From a policy perspective, knowledge of any patterns in retractions may be useful in developing targeted responses to deal with the root causes

Retractions in Science

Publication plays a pivotal role in the growth and dissemination of scientific knowledge. But the growth of knowledge is neither strictly linear nor unidirectional. Mistakes are made. Retraction is one means by which the scientific record is corrected. In this paper, we examine the retraction practices and prevalence in the journal Science. We focus on 35 years of published retractions, from 1983 to 2017. We are not only concerned with determining the scope of the problem, but also the patterns in the data. From a policy perspective, knowledge of any patterns in retractions may be useful in developing targeted responses to deal with the root causes

Costly Collaborations: The Impact of Scientific Fraud on Co-authors' Careers

Over the last few years, several major scientific fraud cases have shocked the scientific community. The number of retractions each year has also increased tremendously, especially in the biomedical field, and scientific misconduct accounts for approximately more than half of those retractions. It is assumed that co-authors of retracted papers are affected by their colleagues' misconduct, and the aim of this study is to provide empirical evidence of the effect of retractions in biomedical research on co-authors' research careers. Using data from the Web of Science (WOS), we measured the productivity, impact and collaboration of 1,123 co-authors of 293 retracted articles for a period of five years before and after the retraction. We found clear evidence that collaborators do suffer consequences of their colleagues' misconduct, and that a retraction for fraud has higher consequences than a retraction for error. Our results also suggest that the extent of these consequences is closely linked with the ranking of co-authors on the retracted paper, being felt most strongly by first authors, followed by the last authors, while the impact is less important for middle authors.Comment: Accepted for publication in the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technolog

Science Means Never Having to Say You’re Sorry? Apologies for Scientific Misconduct

Retractions of journal articles exclude fraudulent or erroneous research from legitimate science and perform boundary work. Analyzing retractions from different disciplines and focusing on their apologetic aspects, we find that these apologies shift between openly addressing emotional, normative, and social themes and concealing them in a more scientific style of communication. Their boundary work remains highly ambivalent: They alternate between scientific and nonscientific forms of speaking, portray unstable patterns of control and coercion, and avoid drawing a boundary between legitimate and nonlegitimate science. In line with the hypothetical nature of scientific knowledge, retractions thus leave boundary making to the future.Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung https://doi.org/10.13039/501100002347Peer Reviewe

Retractions in Intersection Types

This paper deals with retraction - intended as isomorphic embedding - in intersection types building left and right inverses as terms of a lambda calculus with a bottom constant. The main result is a necessary and sufficient condition two strict intersection types must satisfy in order to assure the existence of two terms showing the first type to be a retract of the second one. Moreover, the characterisation of retraction in the standard intersection types is discussed.Comment: In Proceedings ITRS 2016, arXiv:1702.0187

Retractions: the good, the bad, and the ugly

Retractions play an important role in research communication by highlighting and explaining how research projects have failed and thereby preventing these mistakes from being repeated. However, the process of retraction and the data it produces is often sparse or incomplete. Drawing on evidence from 2046 retraction records, Quan-Hoang Vuong discusses the emerging trends this data highlights and argues for the need to enforce reporting standards for retractions, as a means of de-stigmatising retraction and rewarding practising integrity in the scholarly record