Skip to main content
Log in

A Rhetorical Analysis of Apologies for Scientific Misconduct: Do They Really Mean It?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Atlas, M. C. (2004). Retraction policies of high-impact biomedical journals. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 92(2), 242–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, C. (2006). Taking the sincerity out of saying sorry: Restorative justice as ritual. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 23(2), 127–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benoit, W. (1995). Accounts, excuses, and apologies: A theory of image restoration strategies. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brand-Miller, J., & Colagiuri, S. (2004). To the editor. Metabolism, 53(2), 264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlberg, J. E., & Mahler, C. C. (2006). The Poehlman case: Running away from the truth. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 157–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, P. (2002). On apologies. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 19(2), 169–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, N. Y. (1995). How are scientific corrections made. Science and Engineering Ethics, 1, 347–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kihara, S. M. D., & Brimacombe, J. R. (2004). Two manuscripts, too similar. Anesthesiology, 101(3), 801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, C. (2006). Apology to the journal. Neurochemical Research, 31(10), 1295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kopp, W. (2004). Reply: High insulinogenic nutrition—an etiologic factor for obesity and the metabolic syndrome. Metabolism, 53(2), 264–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lajtha, A. (2006). Apology to the journal. Neurochemical Research, 31(10), 1295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerman, J., & Crawford, M. (2004). Two manuscripts, too similar. Anesthesiology, 101(3), 801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, C. W. (1999). Letter of apology from Mr. C. W. Oliver. The Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, 44(6), 4. http://www.rcsed.ac.uk/Journal/vol44_6/4460041.htm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parrish, D. M. (1999). Scientific misconduct and correcting the scientific literature. Academic Medicine, 74, 221–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poehlman, E. T. (2005). To the editor. Annals of Internal Medicine, 142(9), 798.

    Google Scholar 

  • Redman, B. K. Yarandi, H. N., & Merz, J. F. (2008, November). Empirical developments in retraction. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34, 807–809.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruegg, S. (2003). Letter of apology. Epilepsia, 44(11), 1463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, H. R. (1982). Kategoria and apologia: On their rhetorical criticism as a speech set. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 68, 254–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sox, H. C. (2005). Notice of retraction: Final resolution. Annals of Internal Medicine, 142(9), 798.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sox, H. C., & Rennie, D. (2006). Research misconduct, retraction, and cleansing the medical literature: Lessons from the Poehlman case. Annals of Internal Medicine, 144(8), 609–613.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomsen, M., & Resnik, D. (1995). The effectiveness of the erratum in avoiding error propagation in physics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 1(3), 231–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobin, M. J. (2000). Reporting research, retraction of results, and responsibility. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 162, 773–774.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Alphen, E., Bal, M., & Smith, C. (2009). The rhetoric of sincerity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. N. (1996). Arguments from ignorance. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lawrence Souder.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Souder, L. A Rhetorical Analysis of Apologies for Scientific Misconduct: Do They Really Mean It?. Sci Eng Ethics 16, 175–184 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-009-9149-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-009-9149-y

Keywords

Navigation