A Rhetorical Analysis of Apologies for Scientific Misconduct: Do They Really Mean It?
- Lawrence Souder
- … show all 1 hide
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Since published acknowledgements of scientific misconduct are a species of image restoration, common strategies for responding publicly to accusations can be expected: from sincere apologies to ritualistic apologies. This study is a rhetorical examination of these strategies as they are reflected in choices in language: it compares the published retractions and letters of apology with the letters that charge misconduct. The letters are examined for any shifts in language between the charge of misconduct and the response to the charge in order to assess whether the apology was sincere or ritualistic. The results indicate that although most authors’ published acknowledgments of scientific misconduct seem to minimize culpability by means of the strategic use of language, their resulting ritualistic apologies often still satisfy in some way the accusers’ (and thus their community’s) concerns.
- Atlas, MC (2004) Retraction policies of high-impact biomedical journals. Journal of the Medical Library Association 92: pp. 242-250
- Bennett, C (2006) Taking the sincerity out of saying sorry: Restorative justice as ritual. Journal of Applied Philosophy 23: pp. 127-143 CrossRef
- Benoit, W (1995) Accounts, excuses, and apologies: A theory of image restoration strategies. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY
- Brand-Miller, J, Colagiuri, S (2004) To the editor. Metabolism 53: pp. 264 CrossRef
- Dahlberg, JE, Mahler, CC (2006) The Poehlman case: Running away from the truth. Science and Engineering Ethics 12: pp. 157-173 CrossRef
- Davis, P (2002) On apologies. Journal of Applied Philosophy 19: pp. 169-173 CrossRef
- Eremin, O. E. (1999). Notice. The Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, 44(6), 41. http://www.rcsed.ac.uk/Journal/vol44_6/4460041.htm.
- Fisher, R. S. (2003). Retraction for misappropriation. Epilepsia, 44(11), 1463.
- Huang, G., Chou, Y., & Su, F. (2003). Retraction of “Gait analysis and energy consumption of below-knee amputees wearing three different prosthetic feet” [gait and posture 12 (2000) 162–168]. Gait & Posture, 18(3), 124.
- Interlandi, J. (2006, October 22). An unwelcome discovery. New York Times Magazine, p. 98.
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2009). Corrections, retractions and “expressions of concern”, uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication. http://www.icmje.org/. Accessed 5 January 2009.
- Kiang, NY (1995) How are scientific corrections made. Science and Engineering Ethics 1: pp. 347-356 CrossRef
- Kihara, SMD, Brimacombe, JR (2004) Two manuscripts, too similar. Anesthesiology 101: pp. 801 CrossRef
- Kim, C (2006) Apology to the journal. Neurochemical Research 31: pp. 1295 CrossRef
- Kopp, W (2004) Reply: High insulinogenic nutrition—an etiologic factor for obesity and the metabolic syndrome. Metabolism 53: pp. 264-265 CrossRef
- Lajtha, A. (2006). Apology to the journal. Neurochemical Research, 31(10), 1295.
- Lerman, J, Crawford, M (2004) Two manuscripts, too similar. Anesthesiology 101: pp. 801 CrossRef
- Oliver, CW (1999) Letter of apology from Mr. C. W. Oliver. The Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh 44: pp. 4
- Parrish, DM (1999) Scientific misconduct and correcting the scientific literature. Academic Medicine 74: pp. 221-230 CrossRef
- Pfeifer, M. P., & Snodgrass, G. L. (1990). The continued use of retracted, invalid scientific literature. JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical Association, 263(10), 1420.
- Poehlman, ET (2005) To the editor. Annals of Internal Medicine 142: pp. 798
- Redman, B. K. Yarandi, H. N., & Merz, J. F. (2008, November). Empirical developments in retraction. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34, 807–809.
- Ruegg, S. (2003). Letter of apology. Epilepsia, 44(11), 1463.
- Ryan, HR (1982) Kategoria and apologia: On their rhetorical criticism as a speech set. Quarterly Journal of Speech 68: pp. 254-261 CrossRef
- Sox, HC (2005) Notice of retraction: Final resolution. Annals of Internal Medicine 142: pp. 798
- Sox, HC, Rennie, D (2006) Research misconduct, retraction, and cleansing the medical literature: Lessons from the Poehlman case. Annals of Internal Medicine 144: pp. 609-613
- Thomsen, M, Resnik, D (1995) The effectiveness of the erratum in avoiding error propagation in physics. Science and Engineering Ethics 1: pp. 231-240 CrossRef
- Tobin, MJ (2000) Reporting research, retraction of results, and responsibility. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 162: pp. 773-774
- Alphen, E, Bal, M, Smith, C (2009) The rhetoric of sincerity. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA
- Walton, DN (1996) Arguments from ignorance. The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA
- A Rhetorical Analysis of Apologies for Scientific Misconduct: Do They Really Mean It?
Science and Engineering Ethics
Volume 16, Issue 1 , pp 175-184
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Research misconduct
- Lawrence Souder (1)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Culture and Communication, Drexel University, 3141 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA