A Rhetorical Analysis of Apologies for Scientific Misconduct: Do They Really Mean It?
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.
KeywordsRhetoric Apology Research misconduct Ethics
- Atlas, M. C. (2004). Retraction policies of high-impact biomedical journals. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 92(2), 242–250.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
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.
- Lajtha, A. (2006). Apology to the journal. Neurochemical Research, 31(10), 1295.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
- 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
- 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
- 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