Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Silent or Stealth Retractions, the Dangerous Voices of the Unknown, Deleted Literature

  • Published:
Publishing Research Quarterly Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Retractions serve as one perspective of the publishing process, and can offer vast insight into the problems associated with basic research, with the traditional publishing platform, or with policies. Some established retraction guidelines exist, such as those established by the Committee on Publication Ethics, or COPE. This essay provides a perspective of stealth or silent retractions within the broader concept of retractions, and within the framework of the COPE retraction guidelines. The issue of opaque retraction notices, especially in the case of COPE members, as well as the prominence of questionable retraction policies among select “predatory” open access publishers, is emphasized. Select clear examples are provided.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abali H, Eren OO, Erman M, Uner AH, Kose F, Guler N. Coincidental detection of T-cell rich B-cell lymphoma in the paraaortic lymph nodes of a woman undergoing lymph node dissection for cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2003;13:548–50. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1438.2003.13310.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Abali H, Eren OO, Erman M, Uner AH, Kose F, Guler N. Coincidental detection of T-cell rich B-cell lymphoma in the paraaortic lymph nodes of a woman undergoing lymph node dissection for cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2003;13:687–9. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1438.2003.13382.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Academic Journals. 2015. http://www.academicjournals.org/editorial_policies. Accessed 16 Dec 2015.

  4. Beall J. Why researchers should avoid the clute “Institute”. 2014. http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/11/27/why-researchers-should-avoid-the-clute-institute/. Accessed 16 Dec 2015.

  5. Blatt MR. Vigilante science. Plant Physiol. 2015;169:907–9. doi:10.1104/pp.15.01443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics). Retraction guidelines. 2009. http://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines.pdf. Accessed 16 Dec 2015.

  7. COPE. Code of conduct and best practice guidelines for journal editors. 2015. http://publicationethics.org/files/Code%20of%20Conduct_2.pdf. Accessed 16 Dec 2015.

  8. Fanelli D. Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign. PLoS Med. 2013;10(12):e1001563. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012;109:17028–33. doi:10.1073/pnas.1212247109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gewin V. Retractions: a clean slate. Nature. 2014;507:389–91. doi:10.1038/nj7492-389a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. McCook A. What do you do after painful retractions? Q&A with Pamela Ronald and Benjamin Schwessinger. 2015. http://retractionwatch.com/2015/07/24/qa-with-pamela-ronald-redemption-after-retraction/#more-30577. Accessed 16 Dec 2015.

  12. McLean H. Legal issues in retractions & corrections. 2013. http://publicationethics.org/files/u7140/HelenMclean.pdf. Accessed 16 Dec 2015.

  13. Miguel MG, Duarte F, Venâncio F, Tavares R. Chemical composition of the essential oils from Thymus mastichina over a day period. Acta Hortic (ISHS). 2002;576:87–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Miguel MG, Duarte F, Venâncio F, Tavares R. Chemical composition of the essential oils from Thymus mastichina over a day period. Acta Hortic (ISHS). 2003;597:75–8 (retracted).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Raad MK, Zanjani SB, Shoor M, Hamidoghli Y, Sayyad AR, Kharabian-Masouleh A, Kaviani B. Callus induction and organogenesis capacity from lamina and petiole explants of Anthurium andraeanum Linden (Casino and Antadra). Aust J Crop Sci. 2012;6(5):928–37.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Raad MK, Zanjani SB, Sayyad AR, Maghsudi M, Kaviani B. Effect of cultivar, type and age of explants, light conditions and plant growth regulators on callus formation of anthurium. Am Eurasian J Agric Environ Sci. 2012;12(6):706–12 (retracted).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Retraction Watch. Update on Journal of Neuroscience retractions: Authors being investigated. Plus, editor explains why notices say nothing. 2011. http://retractionwatch.com/2011/06/10/update-on-journal-of-neuroscience-retractions-authors-being-investigated-plus-editor-explains-why-notices-say-nothing/. Accessed 16 Dec 2015.

  18. Retraction Watch. Royal Society of Chemistry apologizes for unclear retraction notice. 2013. http://retractionwatch.com/2013/11/19/royal-society-of-chemistry-apologizes-for-unclear-retraction-notice/. Accessed 16 Dec 2015.

  19. Royal Society of Chemistry. 2015. http://www.rsc.org/Publishing/Journals/guidelines/Correction_Retraction_Policy.asp. Accessed 16 Dec 2015.

  20. Springer. 2015. http://www.springer.com/gp/crossmarkpolicy. Accessed 16 Dec 2015.

  21. Steen RG, Casadevall A, Fang FC. Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? PLoS ONE. 2013;8(7): e68397. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068397. Correction: doi:10.1371/annotation/0d28db18-e117-4804-b1bc-e2da285103ac.

  22. Teixeira da Silva JA. Snub publishing: theory. Asian Australas J Plant Sci Biotechnol. 2013;7(Special Issue 1):35–7.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Teixeira da Silva JA. Responsibilities and rights of authors, peer reviewers, editors and publishers: a status quo inquiry and assessment. Asian Australas J Plant Sci Biotechnol. 2013;7(Special Issue 1):6–15.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Teixeira da Silva JA. Why the horticultural world needs the International Society for Horticultural Science (ISHS) and Acta Horticulturae: a 150-year celebration! J Adv Eng Technol. 2014;1(4):25. doi:10.15297/JAET.V1I4.03.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Teixeira da Silva JA. Snub publishing: evidence from the Anthurium literature. Publ Res Q. 2014;30(1):166–78. doi:10.1007/s12109-014-9355-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Teixeira da Silva JA. Recent retraction cases in plant science that show why post-publication peer review is essential. J Adv Eng Technol. 2014;1(3):4. doi:10.15297/JAET.V1I3.03.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Teixeira da Silva JA. The importance of retractions and the need to correct the downstream literature. J Sci Explor. 2015;29(2):353–6.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Teixeira da Silva JA. Pay walled retraction notices. Bangladesh J Bioeth. 2015;6(1):27–39. doi:10.3329/bioethics.v6i1.24403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Teixeira da Silva JA. Debunking post-publication peer review. Int J Educ Inf Technol (Public Sci Framew). 2015;1(2):34–7.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Teixeira da Silva JA. A PPPR road-map for the plant sciences: cementing a road-worthy action plan. J Educ Soc Res. 2015;5(2):15–21. doi:10.5901/jesr.2015.v5n2p15.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Teixeira da Silva JA, Dobránszki J. Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review. Account Res Policies Qual Assur. 2015;22(1):22–40. doi:10.1080/08989621.2014.899909.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Teixeira da Silva JA, Dobránszki J. How authorship is defined by multiple publishing organizations and STM publishers. Account Res Policies Qual Assur. 2015;. doi:10.1080/08989621.2015.1047927.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Wager L. Why are retractions so difficult? Sci Ed. 2015;2(1):32–4. doi:10.6087/kcse.34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Wager L, Williams P. Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of medline retractions 1988–2008. J Med Ethics. 2011;37(9):567–70. doi:10.1136/jme.2010.040964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author thanks Pippa Smart and Irene Hames for critical comments and suggestions during open peer review on an earlier version of the manuscript submitted to Learned Publishing.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. P. O. Box 7, Miki-cho Post Office, 3011-2, Ikenobe, Kagawa-ken, 761-0799, Japan

    Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva

Authors
  1. Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Miguel et al. [13] (original)

http://www.actahort.org/books/576/576_15.htm

Miguel et al. [14] (retracted)

http://www.actahort.org/books/597/597_8.htm

Abali et al. [1] (original)

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1525-1438.2003.13310.x/full

Abali et al. [2] (retracted)

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1525-1438.2003.13382.x/full

Appendix 2

The original article URLs and watermarked PDF files cannot be found.

Retraction 1

Acta Physiologiae Plantarum July 2010, Volume 32, Issue 4, p 821

ASYMMETRIC LEAVES2-LIKE16 gene, a member of AS2/LOB family, is required for lateral root formation of Arabidopsis

Guang-Chao Wang, Lai-Sheng Meng, Xu-Dong Sun, Zhen-Hua Feng, Jian Zhu

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11738-010-0466-1

http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/504/art%253A10.1007%252Fs11738-010-0466-1.pdf?auth66=1411056049_356d2a87f88a8d631f8922a5bf9aa4b2&ext=.pdf

Retraction 2

Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture (PCTOC) August 2010, Volume 102, Issue 2, p 265

Retracted Article: Overexpression of the Arabidopsis ASYMMERTIC LEAVES2-LIKE11 gene in Cockscomb leads to modification of flowering and lateral branching

Xu-Dong Sun, Lai-Sheng Meng, Guang-Chao Wang, Ying Zhou, Zhen-hua Feng

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11240-010-9733-5

http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/83/art%253A10.1007%252Fs11240-010-9733-5.pdf?auth66=1411056341_5b6e0a267853e3d1daccd12c28ec00bd&ext=.pdf

Appendix 3

Raad et al. [15] http://www.cropj.com/kaviani_6_5_2012_928_937.pdf

Raad et al. [16] (retracted: stealth retraction) http://www.idosi.org/aejaes/aejaes12(6).htm

The original journal volume web-site URL (http://www.idosi.org/aejaes/aejaes12(6).htm) is where one would expect to find the manuscript.

A copy has, however, been archived at https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/3982288/full-text/3

Appendix 4

Nature and Science, and example of a journal that engages in heavy/frequent stealth retractions. For example, in this volume alone, four papers (8, 17, 18, 34) have been retracted, without an explanation, without any retraction notice except for a vestigial note, and no idea of the authors, title, or reason for the retraction.

http://www.sciencepub.net/nature/ns1012/

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Teixeira da Silva, J.A. Silent or Stealth Retractions, the Dangerous Voices of the Unknown, Deleted Literature. Pub Res Q 32, 44–53 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-015-9439-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-015-9439-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation