Corrections and retractions in academia

In a previous article, we covered the scientific method and how scientists learn new information, which is shared through publications in journals such as Science and Nature. The public may then assume that when an article is published, it undergoes an infallible verification process. However, scientists are no more immune from making mistakes or changing their opinions based on new findings than anyone else. Unfortunately, correcting scientific literature, or even retracting it for reasons that have nothing to do with misconduct, can be a slow and sometimes harrowing process for all involved [1]. This article serves as a brief introduction into how scientific articles can be changed after publication, and the stigma associated with it in academia.

First, it is important to note that science is “self-correcting”. Traditionally, this meant that scientists would bear the responsibility of critically evaluating and correcting each other, through means such as notes of concern published about a flagged article [2]. Peer-review, or the assessment of an article by a panel of reviewers before publication, has been a formal part of science communication for over 300 years [3]. Furthermore, trust runs deep between scientists, since it is impossible to individually monitor or repeat the plethora of experiments taking place daily across the globe. As summarized by the journal Nature, “If researchers and editors cannot safely assume […] that scientific results are essentially true as reported, then the advancement of science is in serious trouble” [4]. The innocent until proven guilty mentality is far from foolproof though, as evident from the corrections, retractions and misconduct cases occurring each month [5].

A correction is published when an important error has been found, but crucially does not detract from the central claims of the paper or its results. This way, other scientists are alerted to mistakes that may have an impact on their own research. In contrast, a retraction occurs when an error undermines the core concepts of the paper without the intention of misleading [4,6,7]. Hence, the paper could still contain valid figures and data, but the errors mean the rationale of the paper as a whole is flawed. For example, Jaivime Evaristo wrote about his experience with retracting his own Nature article because the paper’s metrics, based on earlier studies in the same field, produced consequential errors in their data [8]. Retractions are therefore different from misconduct, which can be defined as “falsification, fabrication and plagiarism” [9] with the intent to mislead [6], though in this case the paper would also be retracted from the journal.

In theory, the “self-correcting” nature of science and scientific integrity should incentivize post-publication alterations to be applied. In practice, the current scientific climate creates little incentive to do so. Understaffed centers for research integrity, fear of tarnishing their reputation and potential resource-consuming legal battles are reasons why universities and journals may ignore or be secretive about misconduct accusations and retractions [1,10,11]. Similarly, the number of articles and journal ratings are the most common measures of success in science, throwing additional pressure onto the publication process [12]. In the digital age, there is also an unprecedented level of public scrutiny outside of the scientific community and there are websites dedicated to promoting awareness of post-publication changes [1]. Cumulatively though, this heightened sensitivity surrounding the subject makes it difficult for scientists to fight the misconception that retraction always means misconduct [1,10].

Furthermore, legal action, defamation or even physical harm are common deterrents levied against scientific critics [2] and were recently highlighted in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic [13], for example regarding a publication about the drug hydroxychloroquine as an effective treatment option (see references for the full story) [14,15]. This is especially acute for junior scientists, who receive little, if any, protection from having their career progression within academia derailed or job security threatened [1,11]. It is therefore unsurprising that PubPeer, a discussion forum for papers after publication (“post-publication peer review”), changed its policy in 2013 to allow user anonymity [16,17].

Lastly, the post-publication process is not fast enough for the modern era. Though an error may be spotted in a matter of hours after publication, even corrections initiated by the paper’s authors may require arduous effort to implement, including months of correspondence between the journal, the authors and the critics [2,18]. In the case of authors Steve Haroz and Robert Kosara, their proposal to correct a typo and mis-worded sentence was initially rejected by the prominent technology journal IEEE after almost four months of correspondence, but was eventually accepted one month later [18]. Thereafter, poor standardization means notices of publication changes may not be clearly accredited to their associated paper, leading to cases of retracted papers continually being cited [2,10]. In addition, guidelines and regulations for corrections, retractions and misconduct cases are not standardized or universal [1,10]. This leads to the cyclical problems of who to approach to initiate the process and what the level of responsibility is expected from each party involved, from universities to government bodies [1].

In conclusion, there is currently a vicious cycle of viewing corrections as exceptional failures rather than a normal part of the scientific process [2]. As a brief introduction to the topic, this article has explained the difference between corrections, retractions and misconduct, and described the difficulties that scientists can face when trying to amend their articles after publication.

All images are the work of Dr. Marco Garbelli, a member of the Facts&Reasons graphics team.

References:

1. Why are journals so slow at corrections and retractions? https://www.statnews.com/2023/01/10/corrections-retractions-journals/.

2. Besançon, L., Bik, E., Heathers, J. & Meyerowitz-Katz, G. Correction of scientific literature: Too little, too late! PLoS Biology. 20, (2022).

3. What is peer review? Elsevier. Retrieved on 16.04.2023 from https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/what-is-peer-review.

4. Correction or retraction? Nature 2006 4447116 444, 123–124 (2006).

5. Pulverer, B. When things go wrong: correcting the scientific record. EMBO J. 34, 2483–2485 (2015).

6. Paper Retraction: Meaning and Main Reasons. Elsevier Author Services. Retrieved on 16.04.2023 from https://scientific-publishing.webshop.elsevier.com/research-process/paper-retraction-meaning-and-main-reasons/.

7. Oransky, I. Why write a blog about retractions? Retraction Watch. Retrieved on 16.04.2023 from https://retractionwatch.com/2010/08/03/why-write-a-blog-about-retractions/ (2010).

8. Evaristo, J. Retracting my paper was painful. But it helped me grow as a scientist. Science. Retrieved on 06.05.2023 from https://www.science.org/content/article/retracting-my-paper-was-painful-it-helped-me-grow-scientist (2023).

9. What is research misconduct? Imperial College London. Retrieved on 16.04.2023 from https://www.imperial.ac.uk/research-and-innovation/research-office/research-governance-and-integrity/research-integrity/what-is-research-integrity/what-is-research-misconduct/.

10. Van Noorden, R. Science publishing: The trouble with retractions. Nature 478, 26–28 (2011).

11. Misconduct? It’s all academic… Nature 445, 240–241 (2007).

12. Rawat, S. & Meena, S. Publish or perish: Where are we heading? Journal of Research in Medical Science 19(2), 87-9 (2014).

13. Nogrady, B. ‘I hope you die’: how the COVID pandemic unleashed attacks on scientists. Nature 598, 250–253 (2021).

14. Else, H. Scientific image sleuth faces legal action for criticizing research papers. Nature 594, 17–18 (2021).

15. Kincaid, E. PLOS flags nearly 50 papers by controversial French COVID researcher for ethics concerns. Retraction Watch. Retrieved on 16.04.2023 from https://retractionwatch.com/2022/12/13/plos-flags-nearly-50-papers-by-controversial-french-covid-researcher-for-ethics-concerns/ (2022).

16. Ortega, J. L. Classification and analysis of PubPeer comments: How a web journal club is used. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 73, 655–670 (2022).

17. About PubPeer. PubPeer. Retrieved on 16.04.2023 from https://pubpeer.com/static/about.

18. Hullman, J. Update on IEEE’s refusal to issue corrections. Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science. Retrieved on 16.04.2023 from https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/12/23/update-on-ieees-refusal-to-issue-corrections/ (2020).