Retractions: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

doi:10.1016/j.maturitas.2009.09.018

Maturitas

Volume 64, Issue 4, 20 December 2009, Pages 201-203

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2009.09.018 Get rights and content

Abstract

Journal editors should consider retracting a publication if:

•
they have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error)
•
the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission or justification (i.e. cases of redundant publication)
•
it constitutes plagiarism
•
it reports unethical research

Journal editors should consider issuing an expression of concern if:

•
they receive inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors
•
there is evidence that the findings are unreliable but the authors’ institution will not investigate the case
•
they believe that an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication either has not been, or would not be, fair and impartial or conclusive
•
an investigation is underway but a judgement will not be available for a considerable time

Journal editors should consider issuing a correction if:

•
a small portion of an otherwise reliable publication proves to be misleading (especially because of honest error)
•
the author/contributor list is incorrect (i.e. a deserving author has been omitted or somebody who does not meet authorship criteria has been included)

Retractions are not usually appropriate if:

•
a change of authorship is required but there is no reason to doubt the validity of the findings

Notices of retraction should:

•
be linked to the retracted article wherever possible (i.e. in all electronic versions)
•
clearly identify the retracted article (e.g. by including the title and authors in the retraction heading)
•
be clearly identified as a retraction (i.e. distinct from other types of correction or comment)
•
be published promptly to minimize harmful effects from misleading publications
•
be freely available to all readers (i.e. not behind access barriers or available only to subscribers)
•
state who is retracting the article
•
state the reason(s) for retraction (to distinguish misconduct from honest error)
•
avoid statements that are potentially defamatory or libellous

Section snippets

The purpose of retraction

Retraction is a mechanism for correcting the literature and alerting readers to publications that contain such seriously flawed or erroneous data that their findings and conclusions cannot be relied upon. Unreliable data may result from honest error or from research misconduct.

Retractions are also used to alert readers to cases of redundant publication (i.e. when authors present the same data in several publications), plagiarism, and failure to disclose a major competing interest likely to

What form should a retraction take?

Notices of retraction should mention the reasons and basis for the retraction, to distinguish cases of misconduct from those of honest error; they should also specify who is retracting the article. They should be published in all versions of the journal (i.e. print and/or electronic). It is helpful to include the authors and title of the retracted article in the retraction heading.

Retracted articles should be clearly identified as such in all electronic sources (e.g. on the journal website and

Which publications should be retracted?

If only a small part of an article reports flawed data, and especially if this is the result of genuine error, then the problem is best rectified by a correction or erratum. (The term erratum usually refers to a production error, caused by the journal. The term corrigendum (or correction) usually refers to an author error.) Partial retractions are not helpful because they make it difficult for readers to determine the status of the article and which parts may be relied upon.

Similarly, if only a

Who should issue the retraction?

Articles may be retracted by their author(s) or by the journal editor. In some cases, retractions are issued jointly or on behalf of the journal's owner (e.g. a learned society or publisher). However, since responsibility for the journal's content rests with the editor s/he should always have the final decision about retracting material. Journal editors may retract publications (or issue expressions of concern) even if all or some of the authors refuse to retract the publication themselves.

When should a publication be retracted?

Publications should be retracted as soon as possible after the journal editor is convinced that the publication is seriously flawed and misleading (or is redundant or plagiarised). Prompt retraction should minimize the number of researchers who cite the erroneous work, act on its findings or draw incorrect conclusions, such as from ‘double counting’ redundant publications in meta-analyses or similar instances.

If editors have convincing evidence that a retraction is required they should not

What should editors do in the face of inconclusive evidence about a publication's reliability?

If conclusive evidence about the reliability of a publication cannot be obtained (e.g. if authors produce conflicting accounts of the case, authors’ institutions refuse to investigate alleged misconduct or to release the findings of such investigations, or if investigations appear not to have been carried out fairly or are taking an unreasonably long time to reach a conclusion) editors should issue an expression of concern rather than retracting the publication immediately.

Such expressions of

Should retraction be applied in cases of disputed authorship?

Authors sometimes request that articles are retracted when authorship is disputed after publication. If there is no reason to doubt the validity of the findings or the reliability of the data it is not appropriate to retract a publication solely on the grounds of an authorship dispute. In such cases, the journal editor should inform those involved in the dispute that s/he cannot adjudicate in such cases but will be willing to publish a correction to the author/contributor list if the

Can authors dissociate themselves from a retracted publication?

If retraction is due to the actions of some, but not all, authors of a publication, the notice of retraction should mention this. However, most editors consider that authorship entails some degree of joint responsibility for the integrity of the reported research so it is not appropriate for authors to dissociate themselves from a retracted publication even if they were not directly culpable of any misconduct.

Are there grounds for legal proceedings if an author sues a journal for retracting, or refusing to retract, a publication?

Authors who disagree with a retraction (or whose request to retract a publication is refused) sometimes threaten journal editors with legal action. Concern over litigation can make editors reluctant to retract articles, especially in the face of opposition from authors.

Journals’ instructions for authors should explain the retraction procedure and describe the circumstances under which articles might be retracted. This information should be incorporated (e.g. by references) into any publishing

References (0)

Cited by (33)

Is gold open access helpful for academic purification? A causal inference analysis based on retracted articles in biochemistry
2024, Information Processing and Management
The relationship between transparency and credibility has long been a subject of theoretical and analytical exploration within the realm of social sciences, and it has recently attracted increasing attention in the context of scientific research. Retraction serves as a pivotal mechanism in addressing concerns about research integrity. This study aims to empirically examining the relationship between open access level and the effectiveness of current mechanism, specifically academic purification centered on retracted articles. In this study, we used matching and Difference-in-Difference (DiD) methods to examine whether gold open access is helpful for academic purification in biochemistry field. We collected gold open access (Gold OA) and non-open access (non-OA) biochemistry retracted articles as the treatment group, and matched them with corresponding unretracted articles as the control group from 2005 to 2021 based on Web of Science and Retraction Watch database. The results showed that compared to non-OA, Gold OA is advantageous in reducing the retraction time of flawed articles, but does not demonstrate a significant advantage in reducing citations after retraction. This indicates that Gold OA may help expedite the detection and retraction of flawed articles, ultimately promoting the practice of responsible research.
Retractions of academic publications in psychiatry
2022, Asian Journal of Psychiatry
Analysis of retracted articles in the surgical literature
2018, American Journal of Surgery
Citation Excerpt :
Several factors may be driving this increase, including lower barriers to the publication of articles containing flaws, greater scrutiny of published work, easier electronic access to articles, expanded indications for retraction, and more expeditious retractions.9 The Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE) created guidelines for retractions in 2009 with the goal of correcting and ensuring the integrity of the published literature.10 COPE delineated indications for the retraction of articles and outlined the content that should be contained within a posted retraction notice.
Retractions of scientific articles represent attempts to correct the literature. Our goal was to examine retracted surgical papers.
NCBI PubMed database was queried using the search terms “surgery,” “surg,” or “surgical” and “retracted” or “retraction.” Article details were recorded.
There were 184 retracted surgical articles identified from 1991 through 2015. Average retraction time was 3.6 years. General (26%), Cardiac (22%), and Orthopedic (10%) surgery were most common. Reasons for retraction were duplication (35.3%), Institutional Review Board violations (18.5%), falsified data (14.7%), data errors (9.8%), author dispute (8.2%), plagiarism (7.6%), copyright violations (2.2%), financial disclosure violations (0.5%), and consent (0.5%). No reason for retraction was given in 8.7% of cases. Median IF was higher for administrative than content-related retraction reasons (3.0 vs. 2.0, P < 0.01). A paywall, requiring a subscription to read, restricted access to 23.4% of retraction notices.
Article retractions occur across all fields of surgery for various reasons, both administrative and content-related. The majority of surgical retraction notices have a reason for retraction listed and do not require payment to read.
Retraction of leadership articles: Causes and prevention
2014, Leadership Quarterly
Occasionally, published articles must be retracted to protect the integrity of the scientific record. Recently, The Leadership Quarterly retracted several articles. In this editorial, we describe why these retractions were warranted and the process leading to them. The key considerations giving rise to retractions, that is, accuracy in describing method and accuracy in describing results, are noted. The actions that authors must take to ensure their articles are not subject to retraction are also discussed.
Retracted publications in BRICS countries: an analytical study
2023, Scientometrics
A bibliometric study of article retractions in technology fields in developing economies countries
2023, Scientometrics

View all citing articles on Scopus

View full text