The limitations of retraction notices and the heroic acts of authors who correct the scholarly record: An analysis of retractions of papers published from 1975 to 2019

Abstract

While researchers with retracted papers – publications that are withdrawn because of significant errors or scientific misconduct – carry a permanent stain on their publishing records, understanding the causes and initiators of such retractions can shed a different light on the matter. This paper, based on a random sample of 2,046 retracted papers, which were published between 1975 and 2019, extracted from Retraction Watch and the websites of major publishers, shows that 53% of the retraction notices do not specify who initiated the retraction. Nearly 10% of the retraction notes either omit or do not contain information related to reasons for retractions. Furthermore, most of the retracted papers in our sample have no limitation section; those who do are commonly unhelpful or irrelevant. The results carry three implications for scientific transparency: retraction notices need to be more informative; limitation sections ought to be a required and even an open section of all published articles; and finally, promoting ‘heroic acts’ in science can positively change the current publishing culture.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 126 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.