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.
Integrity Error Misconduct Retractions Corrections Moral reasoning
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
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
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
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
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
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
Nagel, T. (1986). The view from nowhere. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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
Toulmin, S., Rieke, R. D., & Janik, A. (1979). An introduction to reasoning. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
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
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