Abstract
Increasingly, scholarly journals have begun retracting published articles for reasons other than those described by advisory organizations such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Numerous research articles have been retracted of late due to political concerns. Additionally, some articles have been retracted for behavioral misconduct, which was also the subject of a recent COPE discussion forum. ‘Behavioral misconduct’ denotes harmful or immoral behavior of one or more authors that is unrelated to the article’s findings or content. We investigated whether federally funded research scientists considered behavioral misconduct a valid reason for retracting published findings and whether the type of behavioral misconduct involved, the level of the expected scientific impact of the article in question, or the kind of editorial action taken affected their support of retraction. Of the 464 participants who took our survey, we found that researchers largely oppose retraction of a published article or removing an author when scientists commit behavioral misconduct, regardless of the type of misconduct involved. However, there was greater support for retraction when the misconduct was financial as compared to racial or sexual misconduct. Not surprisingly, researchers were more likely to use the published information in question in their own work when its impact was high. Future studies should investigate the extent to which these findings are moderated by researchers’ editorial experience and other demographic factors.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
AlShebli, B., Makovi, K., & Rahwan, T. (2020). Retracted Article: The association between early career informal mentorship in academic collaborations and junior author performance. Nature Communications, 11(1), 1–8.
Bostrom, N. (2011). Information hazards: A typology of potential harms from knowledge. Review of Contemporary Philosophy, 10, 44–79.
Botkin, J. R. (2018). Should failure to disclose significant financial conflicts of interest be considered research misconduct? JAMA, 320(22), 2307–2308.
Boudry, C., Howard, K., & Mouriaux, F. (2023). Poor visibility of retracted articles: a problem that should no longer be ignored. BMJ, 381, e072929
Brill’s Journal of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics (BJALL). (2021). “Publisher’s Notice.” Retrieved on October 6, 2023 from https://brill.com/view/journals/aall/13/1/article-p1_1.xml?language=en
Carnes, N. C., Allmon, B., Alva, J., Cousar, K. A., & Varnam, Z. D. (2022). How morality signals, benefits, binds, and teaches. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 101, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104313
Clark, C. J., Fjeldmark, M., Lu, L., Baumeister, R., Ceci, S., Frey, K., Miller, G., Reilly, W., Tice, D., von Hippel, W., Williams, W., Winegard, B., & Tetlock, P. (Revise and Resubmit). Taboos and self-censorship among U.S. Psychology Professors, TDB.
Clark, C. J., Graso, M., Redstone, I., & Tetlock, P. E. (2023a). Harm hypervigilance in public reactions to scientific evidence. Psychological Science, 34, 834–848.
Clark, C. J., Jussim, L., Frey, K., Stevens, S. T., Al-Gharbi, M., Aquino, K., Bailey, L., Barbaro, N., Baumeister, R., Bleske-Rechek, A., Buss, D., Ceci, S., Del Giudice, M., Ditto, P., Forgas, J., Geary, D., Geher, G., Haider, S., Honeycutt, N., … Lu., L., Macy, M., Martin, C., McWhorter, J., Miller, G., Paresky, P., Pinker, S., Reilly, W., Salmon, C., Stewart-Williams, S., Tetlock, P., Williams, W., Wilson, A., Winegard, B., Yancy, G., & von Hippel, W. (2023b). Prosocial motives underlie scientific censorship by scientists: A perspective and research agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(48), e2301642120.
Clark, C. J., & Winegard, B. M. (2020). Tribalism in war and peace: The nature and evolution of ideological epistemology and its significance for modern social science. Psychological Inquiry, 31(1), 1–22.
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2022). Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Author Behavioral Misconduct. Retrieved on October 6, 2023 from https://publicationethics.org/resources/forum-discussion-topics/author-behaviouralmisconduct#:~:text=Authors%20refusing%20to%20cite%20or,%2C%20opinions%2C%20or%20perceived%20character
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2019). Retraction Guidelines. Retrieved on October 6, 2023 from https://publicationethics.org/retraction-guidelines
Cornwell, J. F., Jago, C. P., & Higgins, E. T. (2019). When group influence is more or less likely: The case of moral judgments. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 41(6), 386–395.
Decullier, E., Huot, L., Samson, G., & Maisonneuve, H. (2013). Visibility of retractions: A cross-sectional one-year study. BMC Research Notes, 6(1), 1–6.
Edlund, J. E., Okdie, B. M., & Scherer, C. R. (2022). Best practices for considering retractions. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03764-x
Fanelli, D., Ioannidis, J. P., & Goodman, S. (2018). Improving the integrity of published science: An expanded taxonomy of retractions and corrections. European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 48(4), e12898.
Ferguson, A. C. (2014). Will journal finally retract fraudulent paper 10 months after an official request? Retraction Watch. Retrieved on October 30, 2023 from https://retractionwatch.com/2014/10/30/will-journal-finally-retract-fraudulent-paper-10-months-after-an-official-request/
Goodwin, M. J. (2022). Is academic freedom under threat? (p. 19). Legatum Institute. Retrieved on October 6th from https://li.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Legatum-Institute-Is-Academic-Freedom-Under-Threat.pdf
Grant Fraud Responsibilities. (2024). Grants.gov. Retrieved on October 6, 2023 from https://www.grants.gov/learn-grants/grant-fraud/grant-fraud-responsibilities.html
Gingras, Y. (2022). “Will Moralization of Science Lead to ‘Better’ Science?” Journal of Controversial Ideas, 2(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.35995/jci02020004
Heerman, W. J., Jackson, N., Roumie, C. L., Harris, P. A., Rosenbloom, S. T., Pulley, J., Wilkins, C. H., Williams, N. A., Crenshaw, D., Leak, C., Scherdin, J., & Kripalani., S. (2017). Recruitment methods for survey research: Findings from the mid-south clinical data research network. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 62, 50–55.
Hwang, S. Y., Yon, D. K., Lee, S. W., Kim, M. S., Kim, J. Y., Smith, L., Koyanagi, A., Solmi, M., Carvalho, A. F., Kim, E., Shin, J. I., & Ioannidis, J. P. (2023). Causes for retraction in the biomedical literature: a systematic review of studies of retraction notices. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 38(41), e333.
Honeycutt, N., & Jussim, L. (2020). A model of political bias in social science research. Psychological Inquiry, 31, 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2020.1722600
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). (2023). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. Retrieved on October 6, 2023 from https://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kincaid, E. (2022, December 27). Russian philosophy journal CITES Law Banning “LGBT propaganda” in retraction. Retraction Watch. https://retractionwatch.com/2022/12/28/russian-philosophy-journal-cites-law-banning-lgbt-propaganda-in-retraction/
Kohl, C. B. S., & Faggion, C. M., Jr. (2022). A comprehensive overview of studies that assessed article retractions within the biomedical sciences. Accountability in Research, 1–19,. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2154660
Marcus, A. (2017). Engineering Journal removes article co-authored by former president of Iran. Retraction Watch. Retrieved on October 6, 2023 from https://retractionwatch.com/2017/08/30/engineering-journal-removes-article-co-authored-former-president-iran/
McCook, A. (2017a). Following uproar, Surgery Journal retracts paper with male-only pronouns. Retraction Watch. Retrieved on October 6, 2023 from https://retractionwatch.com/2017/07/24/following-uproar-surgery-journal-retracts-paper-male-pronouns/
McCook, A. (2017b). “Credible threats of personal violence” against editor prompt withdrawal of Colonialism Paper. Retraction Watch. Retrieved on October 6, 2023 from https://retractionwatch.com/2017/10/09/credible-threats-personal-violence-editor-prompt-withdrawal-colonialism-paper/
Meier, U. (2006). A note on the power of Fisher’s least significant difference procedure. Pharmaceutical Statistics, 5(4), 253–263. https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.210. PMID: 17128424.
Merton, R. K. (1942). Science and technology in a democratic order. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology, 1(1), 115–126.
Moraes, R. R., Correa, M. B., Daneris, Â., Queiroz, A. B., Lopes, J. P., Lima, G. S., Cenci, M. S., D’Avila, O. P., Pannuti, C. M., Pereira-Cenci, T., & Demarco, F. F. (2021). Email vs. Instagram recruitment strategies for online survey research. Brazilian Dental Journal, 32, 67–77.
Namuth, A., Brown, M., Macchione, A. L., & Sacco, D. F. (2023). Assessing the online scientific community's support for various reasons for article retraction: A preliminary survey. Ethics in Progress, 14, 50–67. https://doi.org/10.14746/eip.2023.2.4
Nature Human Behavior Editorial. (2022). Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans. Nature Human Behavior, 6, 1029–1031.
Sacco, D. F., Namuth, A. J., Macchione, A. L., & Brown, M. (2024). Differences in support for retractions based on information hazards among undergraduates and federally funded scientists. Journal of Academic Ethics, 1–16,. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09505-y
Sapunar, L. (2020). A retraction and a retraction request as Twitter users call out sexism, fat-shaming, and racism. Retraction Watch. Retrieved on October 6, 2023 from https://retractionwatch.com/2020/08/06/a-retraction-and-a-retraction-request-as-twitter-users-call-out-sexism-fat-shaming-and-racism/
Savolainen, J. (2023). Unequal treatment under the flaw: race, crime & retractions. Current Psychology, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04739-2
Scholars Under Fire Database. (n.d.). The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/scholars-under-fire
Stern, V., (2017). After researcher is convicted of sexual assault, Journal retracts her co-author’s paper. Retraction Watch. Retrieved on October 6, 2023 from https://retractionwatch.com/2017/05/04/author-sexually-assaulted-journal-retracts-paperduplication/#:~:text=Archives,After%20researcher%20is%20convicted%20of%20sexual%20assault%2C%20journal%20retracts%20her,situation%20is%20far%20from%20ordinary
Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Toplak, M. E. (2013). Myside bias, rational thinking, and intelligence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(4), 259–264.
Stevens, S. T., Jussim, L., & Honeycutt, N. (2020). Scholarship suppression: Theoretical perspectives and emerging trends. Societies., 10(4), 82.
Suelzer, E. M., Deal, J., Hanus, K., Ruggeri, B. E., & Witkowski, E. (2021). Challenges in identifying the retracted status of an article. JAMA Network Open, 4(6), e2115648–e2115648.
Sunstein, C. R. (2005). Moral Heuristics. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(4), 531–541.
Tang, L., Hu, G., Sui, Y., Yang, Y., & Cao, C. (2020). Retraction: The “other face” of research collaboration? Science and Engineering Ethics, 26, 1681–1708.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics Approval
This project was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Southern Mississippi, protocol number IRB-23-0702. We provide our data and materials through Open Science Framework in a link within the document.
Conflict of Interest
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Namuth, A., Bruton, S., Wright, L. et al. Behavioral Misconduct as a Basis for Scientific Retractions. J Acad Ethics (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09518-7
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09518-7