Ending the retraction stigma: Encouraging the reporting of errors in the biomedical record

Research Ethics

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2021, Pages 251-259

  Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A ^a   Al Khatib, Aceil ^b  

^a Ikenobe   (Japan)

^b JORDAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Jordan)

Author keywords

Amendment; culture; editorial policies; lexicon; responsibility; retraction notice

Indexed keywords

EID: 85063946202     PISSN: 17470161     EISSN: 20476094     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1747016118802970     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Azoulay P, Bonatti A, Krieger JL, (2015) The career effects of scandal: Evidence from scientific retractions. NBER Working Paper No. 21146. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. Available at: http://jkrieger.scripts.mit.edu/docs/w21146.pdf (accessed 12 January 2018).
2. Bar-Ilan J, Halevi G, (2017) Post retraction citations in context: A case study. Scientometrics 113(1): 547–565, doi: 10.1007/s11192–017–2242–0.
3. Barbour V, Bloom T, Lin J, Moylan E, (2017) Amending published articles: Time to rethink retractions and corrections? [version 1]. F1000Research 6: 1960, doi: 10.12688/f1000research.13060.1.
4. Bishop DVM, (2017) Fallibility in science: Responding to errors in the work of oneself and others. PeerJ Preprints 5:e3486v1, doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.3486v1 (not peer reviewed).
5. Budd JM, Sievert M, Schultz TR, Scoville C, (1999) Effects of article retraction on citation and practice in medicine. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 87(4): 437–443. PMCID: PMC226618.
6. Cagney H, Horton R, James A, et al. (2016) Retraction and republication – a new tool for correcting the scientific record. European Science Editing 42(1): 3–7.
7. Christiansen S, Flanagin A, (2017) Correcting the medical literature: “to err is human, to correct divine”. JAMA 318(9): 804–805, doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.11833.
8. Eslava-Schmalbach J, Escobar-Córdoba F, (2012) Random error, bias and fraud in scientific publications. Revista Colombiana de Anestesiología 40(2): 91–94, doi: 10.1016/S0120–3347(12)70018–7.
9. Fanelli D, (2016) Set up a ‘self-retraction’ system for honest errors. Nature 531(7595): 415, doi: 10.1038/531415a.
10. Gewin V, (2014) Retractions: A clean slate. Nature 507(7492): 389–391, doi: 10.1038/nj7492–389a.
11. Heckers S, Bauchner H, Flanagin A, (2015) Retracting, replacing, and correcting the literature for pervasive error in which the results change but the underlying science is still reliable. JAMA Psychiatry 72(12): 1170–1171, doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.2278.
12. Hosseini M, Hilhorst M, de Beaufort I, Fanelli D, (2018) Doing the right thing: A qualitative investigation of retractions due to unintentional error. Science and Engineering Ethics 24(1): 189–206, doi: 10.1007/s11948–017–9894–2.
13. Lu SF, Jin GZ, Uzzi B, Jones B, (2013) The retraction penalty: Evidence from the Web of Science. Scientific Reports 3: 3146, doi: 10.1038/srep03146.
14. Marcus A, Oransky I, (2014) What studies of retractions tell us. Journal of Microbiology and Biological Education 15(2): 151–154, doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v15i2.855.
15. Peterson GM, (2010) The effectiveness of the practice of correction and republication in the biomedical literature. Journal of the Medical Library Association 98(2): 135–139, doi: 10.3163/1536–5050.98.2.005.
16. Steen RG, Casadevall A, Fang FC, (2013) Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? PLoS ONE 8(7): e68397, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068397.
17. Teixeira da Silva JA, (2016a) Retractions represent failure. Journal of Educational and Social Research 6(3): 11–12, doi: 10.5901/jesr.2016.v6n3p11.
18. Teixeira da Silva JA, (2016b) An error is an error … is an erratum: The ethics of not correcting errors in the science literature. Publishing Research Quarterly 32(3): 220–226, doi: 10.1007/s12109–016–9469–0.
19. Teixeira da Silva JA, (2016c) Science watchdogs. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 5(3): 13–15, doi: 10.5901/ajis.2016.v5n3p13.
20. Teixeira da Silva JA, (2017) Evolving the correction of the literature: Manuscript versioning, error amendment, and retract and replace. Preprints 2017: 2017080029, doi: 10.20944/preprints201708.0029.v1.
21. Teixeira da Silva JA, Blatt MR, (2016) Does the anonymous voice have a place in scholarly publishing? Plant Physiology 170(4): 1899–1902, doi: 10.1104/pp.15.01939.
22. Teixeira da Silva JA, Bornemann-Cimenti H, (2017) Why do some retracted papers continue to be cited? Scientometrics 110(1): 365–370, doi: 10.1007/s11192–016–2178–9.
23. Teixeira da Silva JA, Dobránszki J, (2015) Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance 22(1): 22–40, doi: 10.1080/08989621.2014.899909.
24. Teixeira da Silva JA, Dobránszki J, (2017a) Highly cited retracted papers. Scientometrics 110(3): 1653–1661, doi: 10.1007/s11192–016–2227–4.
25. Teixeira da Silva JA, Dobránszki J, (2017b) Notices and policies for retractions, expressions of concern, errata and corrigenda: Their importance, content, and context. Science and Engineering Ethics 23(2): 521–554, doi: 10.1007/s11948–016–9769-y.
26. Teixeira da Silva JA, Al-Khatib A, Dobránszki J, (2017) Fortifying the corrective nature of post-publication peer review: Identifying weakness, use of journal clubs, and rewarding conscientious behavior. Science and Engineering Ethics 23(4): 1213–1226, doi: 10.1007/s11948–016–9854–2.