Doing the Right Thing: A Qualitative Investigation of Retractions Due to Unintentional Error

  • Mohammad Hosseini
  • Medard Hilhorst
  • Inez de Beaufort
  • Daniele Fanelli
Original Paper

Abstract

Retractions solicited by authors following the discovery of an unintentional error—what we henceforth call a “self-retraction”—are a new phenomenon of growing importance, about which very little is known. Here we present results of a small qualitative study aimed at gaining preliminary insights about circumstances, motivations and beliefs that accompanied the experience of a self-retraction. We identified retraction notes that unambiguously reported an honest error and that had been published between the years 2010 and 2015. We limited our sample to retractions with at least one co-author based in the Netherlands, Belgium, United Kingdom, Germany or a Scandinavian country, and we invited these authors to a semi-structured interview. Fourteen authors accepted our invitation. Contrary to our initial assumptions, most of our interviewees had not originally intended to retract their paper. They had contacted the journal to request a correction and the decision to retract had been made by journal editors. All interviewees reported that having to retract their own publication made them concerned for their scientific reputation and career, often causing considerable stress and anxiety. Interviewees also encountered difficulties in communicating with the journal and recalled other procedural issues that had unnecessarily slowed down the process of self-retraction. Intriguingly, however, all interviewees reported how, contrary to their own expectations, the self-retraction had brought no damage to their reputation and in some cases had actually improved it. We also examined the ethical motivations that interviewees ascribed, retrospectively, to their actions and found that such motivations included a combination of moral and prudential (i.e. pragmatic) considerations. These preliminary results suggest that scientists would welcome innovations to facilitate the process of self-retraction.

Keywords

Integrity Error Misconduct Retractions Corrections Moral reasoning 

References

  1. Baylis, F. (2004). The Olivieri debacle: Where were the heroes of bioethics? Journal of Medical Ethics. doi:10.1136/jme.2003.005330.Google Scholar
  2. Consoli, L. (2008). The intertwining of ethics and methodology in science and engineering: A virtue-ethical approach. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews. doi:10.1179/174327908x366923.Google Scholar
  3. Fanelli, D. (2013). Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign. PLoS Medicine. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001563.Google Scholar
  4. Fanelli, D. (2016). Set up a ‘self-retraction’ system for honest errors. Nature. doi:10.1038/531415a.Google Scholar
  5. Fanelli, D., Costas, R., & Larivière, V. (2015). Misconduct policies, academic culture and career stage, not gender or pressures to publish, affect scientific integrity. PLoS ONE. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0127556.Google Scholar
  6. Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. doi:10.1073/pnas.1212247109.Google Scholar
  7. Frankfurt, H. (2001). The dear self. Philosophers’ imprint. http://www.philosophersimprint.org/001000/. Accessed 18 April 2016.
  8. Gross, C. (2016). Scientific misconduct. Annual Review of Psychology. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033437.Google Scholar
  9. Heckers, S., Bauchner, H., & Flanagin, A. (2015). Retracting, replacing, and correcting the literature for pervasive error in which the results change but the underlying science is still reliable. JAMA Psychiatry. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.2278.Google Scholar
  10. Hilhorst, M. T., Kranenburg, L. W., & Busschbach, J. J. (2006). Should health care professionals encourage living kidney donation? Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. doi:10.1007/s11019-006-9002-x.Google Scholar
  11. Lu, S. F., Jin, G. Z., Uzzi, B., & Jones, B. (2013). The retraction penalty: evidence from the web of science. Scientific Reports. doi:10.1038/srep03146.Google Scholar
  12. Nagel, T. (1986). The view from nowhere. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Pulverer, B. (2015). When things go wrong: Correcting the scientific record. The EMBO Journal. doi:10.15252/embj.201570080.Google Scholar
  14. QSR International. (2015). NVivo [Computer software]. Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  15. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Resnik, D. B., Rasmussen, L. M., & Kissling, G. E. (2015a). An international study of research misconduct policies. Accountability in Research. doi:10.1080/08989621.2014.958218.Google Scholar
  17. Resnik, D. B., Wager, E., & Kissling, G. E. (2015b). Retraction policies of top scientific journals ranked by impact factor. Journal of the Medical Library Association. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.103.3.006.Google Scholar
  18. Toulmin, S., Rieke, R. D., & Janik, A. (1979). An introduction to reasoning. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  19. Vasconcelos, S., Vasgird, D., Ichikawa, I., & Plemmons, D. (2014). Authorship guidelines and actual practice: Are they harmonized in different research systems? Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v15i2.867.Google Scholar
  20. Williams, P., & Wager, E. (2011). Exploring why and how journal editors retract articles: Findings from a qualitative study. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-011-9292-0.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohammad Hosseini
    • 1
  • Medard Hilhorst
    • 2
  • Inez de Beaufort
    • 2
  • Daniele Fanelli
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, Ethics InstituteUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Medical Ethics and PhilosophyErasmus University Medical Center RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS)Stanford UniversityPalo AltoUSA

Personalised recommendations