Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 521–554 | Cite as

Notices and Policies for Retractions, Expressions of Concern, Errata and Corrigenda: Their Importance, Content, and Context

Original Paper


A retraction notice is an essential scientific historical document because it should outline the reason(s) why a scientific manuscript was retracted, culpability (if any) and any other factors that have given reason for the authors, editors, or publisher, to remove a piece of the literature from science’s history books. Unlike an expression of concern (EoC), erratum or corrigendum, a retraction will usually result in a rudimentary vestige of the work. Thus, any retraction notice that does not fully indicate a set of elements related to the reason and background for the retraction serves as a poor historical document. Moreover, poorly or incompletely worded retraction notices in fact do not serve their intended purpose, i.e., to hold all parties accountable, and to inform the scientific and wider public of the problem and reason for the paper’s demise. This paper takes a look at the definitions and the policies of clauses for retractions, EoCs, errata and corrigenda in place by 15 leading science, technology and medicine (STM) publishers and four publishing-related bodies that we believe have the greatest influence on the current fields of science, technology and medicine. The primary purpose was to assess whether there is a consistency among these entities and publishers. Using an arbitrary 5-scale classification system, and evaluating the different categories of policies separately, we discovered that in almost all cases (88.9 %), the wording used to define these four categories of polices differs from that of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which is generally considered to be the guiding set of definitions in science publishing. In addition, as much as 61 % deviation in policies (wording and meaning), relative to COPE guidelines, was discovered. When considering the average pooled deviation across all categories of policies, we discovered that there was either no deviation or a small deviation, only in the wording, in the definition of policies when compared to the COPE guidelines in 1 out of 3 ethical bodies, and in 40 % (6 out of 15) STM publishers. Moderate deviation from the COPE guidelines was detected in 26.7 % of STM publishers and one ethical body but a large deviation in one ethical body and 20 % of STM publishers was observed. Two STM publishers (13.3 %) did not report any information about these policies. Even though in practice, editors and publishers may deviate from these written definitions when dealing with case-by-case issues, we believe that it is essential, to serve as a consistent guide for authors and editors, that the wording be standardized across these entities. COPE and these entities also have the responsibility of making it clear that these definitions are merely suggestions and that their application may be subjected to subjective interpretation and application.


Accountability COPE Correction Errors Ethics Free Literature correction Retraction STM publishers 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


  1. Barbour, V. (2013). Responding to anonymous whistle blowers: COPE discussion document. Accessed 27 February, 2016.
  2. Bentham. (2015). Editorial polices. Accessed 27 February, 2016.
  3. Bosch, X., Hernández, C., Pericas, J. M., Doti, P., & Marušić, A. (2012). Misconduct policies in high-impact biomedical journals. PLoS One, 7(12), e51928. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0051928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ciaudo, C., Jay, F., Okamoto, I., Chen, C.-J., Sarazin, A., Servant, N., et al. (2013). RNAi-dependent and independent control of LINE1 accumulation and mobility in mouse embryonic stem cells. PLOS Genetics, 9(11), e1003791. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1003791 (7 November, 2013); correction [doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1005077 (25 March, 2015)]; EOC [doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1005377 (29 June, 2015)]; retraction [doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1005519 (3 September, 2015)].
  5. CSE (Council of Science Editors). (2015). 3.5. Correcting the literatue. 3.5.1. Definitions. Accessed 27 February, 2016.
  6. Elsevier. (2015a). Policies. Crossmark. Accessed 27 February, 2016.
  7. Elsevier. (2015b). Policies. Article withdrawal. Accessed 27 February, 2016.
  8. Emerald. (2015). Emerald publication ethics guidelines. Basic principles. Accessed 27 February, 2016.
  9. Fanelli, D. (2013). Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign. PLOS Med, 10(12), e1001563. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hindawi. (2015). Publication ethics. Accessed 27 February, 2016.
  11. ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors). (2015). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. Accessed 27 February, 2016.
  12. IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers). (2015). IEEE publication services and products board operations manual 2015. Accessed 27 February, 2016.
  13. Inderscience. (2015). Author guidelines. Accessed 27 February, 2016.
  14. NPG (Nature Publishing Group). (2015). Editorial and publishing policies. Accessed 27 February, 2016.
  15. OUP (Oxford University Press). (2015). OUP statement on publication ethics. Accessed 27 February, 2016.
  16. PLOS (Public Library of Science). (2015). Corrections and retractions. Accessed 27 February, 2016.
  17. Resnik, D. B., Patrone, D., & Peddada, S. (2010). Research misconduct policies of social science journals and impact factor. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance, 17(2), 79–84. doi: 10.1080/08989621003641181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Resnik, D. B., Peddada, S., & Brunson, W, Jr. (2009). Research misconduct policies of scientific journals. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance, 16(5), 254–267. doi: 10.1080/08989620903190299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Resnik, D. B., Wager, E., & Kissling, G. E. (2015). Retraction policies of top scientific journals ranked by impact factor. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 103(3), 136–139. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.103.3.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Routledge. (2015). Accessed 27 February, 2016.
  21. SAGE. (2015). Corrections policy. Accessed 27 February, 2016.
  22. Saunders, N. (2016). PubMed retractions report. Accessed 27 February, 2016.
  23. Springer. (2015). Publishing ethics for journals. How to correct the literature? Accessed 27 February, 2016.
  24. Taylor and Francis. (2015). Taylor and Francis corrections policy. Accessed 27 February, 2016.
  25. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2013). Responsibilities and rights of authors, peer reviewers, editors and publishers: A status quo inquiry and assessment. Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology, 7(Special Issue 1), 6–15.Google Scholar
  26. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2015a). The importance of retractions and the need to correct the downstream literature. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 29(2), 353–356.Google Scholar
  27. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2015b). A call for greater editorial responsibilities. Science Editing, 2(2), 89–91. doi: 10.6087/kcse.50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2015c). Pay walled retraction notices. Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics, 6(1), 27–39. doi: 10.3329/bioethics.v6i1.24403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2016). Silent or stealth retractions, the dangerous voices of the unknown, deleted literature. Publishing Research Quarterly, 32(1), 44–53. doi: 10.1007/s12109-015-9439-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Dobránszki, J. (2015a). 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Dobránszki, J. (2015b). The role of the anonymous voice in post-publication peer review versus traditional peer review. KOME, 3(2), 90–94. doi: 10.17646/KOME.2015.27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Dobránszki, J. (2016). How authorship is defined by multiple publishing organizations and STM publishers. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance,. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2015.1047927.Google Scholar
  33. Wager, E., Barbour, V., Yentis, S., & Kleinert, S. (2009). Retractions: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Accessed 27 February, 2016.
  34. WAME (The World Association of Medical Editors). (2015). Recommendations on publication ethics policies for medical journals. Accessed 27 February, 2016.
  35. Wiley. (2015). Publication ethics. Best practice guidelines on publication ethics: A publisher’s perspective. 8.15. Best practice: errata, retractions, expressions of concern. Accessed 27 February, 2016.
  36. Williams, P., & Wager, E. (2013). Exploring why and how journal editors retract articles: Findings from a qualitative study. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19, 1–11. doi: 10.1007/s11948-011-9292-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
    • 1
  • Judit Dobránszki
    • 2
  1. 1.Kita-gunJapan
  2. 2.Research Institute of NyíregyházaUniversity of DebrecenNyíregyházaHungary

Personalised recommendations