Abstract
While psychology and other scientific fields may not always live up to the ideal of self-correction, retractions are one effective mechanism to address flawed entries in the scientific record once they have already been published. Despite their utility, retractions are steeped in stigma for authors, and information about the role of authors in the retraction process is not consistently reported in retraction statements. Based on examples across the variety of existing retraction statements across fields, we propose three categories of retractions based on authors’ roles, as well as suggested standard criteria for retraction statements to ensure they provide adequate information about the process, rationale, and interpretability of retractions while providing authors with a voice in this very challenging outcome for their work.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.
References
Candal-Pedreira, C., Ruano-Ravina, A., Fernández, E., Ramos, J., Campos-Varela, I., & Pérez-Ríos, M. (2020). Does retraction after misconduct have an impact on citations? A pre–post study. BMJ Global Health, 5(11), e003719. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003719.
Committee on Publication Ethics (2019). COPE Retraction guidelines. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4.
“Demographic faultlines: A meta-analysis of the literature:” Retraction of Thatcher and Patel (2011). (2016). Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(8), 1150. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000137.
Dolk, T., Freigang, C., Bogon, J., & Dreisbach, G. (2018). Auditory (dis-)fluency triggers sequential processing adjustments. Acta Psychologica, 191, 69–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.08.021.
Dolk, T., Freigang, C., Bogon, J., & Dreisbach, G. (2019). Auditory (dis-)fluency triggers sequential processing adjustments: Retraction notice. Acta Psychologica, 198, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2019.102886. Article 102886.
Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One, 4(5), e5738. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738.
Gelman, A., & Loken, E. (2014). The statistical crisis in science. American Scientist, 102, 460–465.
Grave, J. (2021). Scientists should be open about their mistakes. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(12), 1593–1593. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01225-2.
Hosseini, M., Hilhorst, M., de Beaufort, I., & Fanelli, D. (2018). Doing the right thing: A qualitative investigation of retractions due to unintentional error. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24, 189–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9894-2.
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.
Jin, G. Z., Jones, B., Lu, S. F., & Uzzi, B. (2019). The reverse Matthew effect: Consequences of retraction in scientific teams. Review of Economics and Statistics, 101(3), 492–506. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00780.
John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23, 524–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611430953.
Klein, R. A., Ratliff, K. A., Vianello, M., Adams, R. B. Jr., Bahnik, S., Bernstein, M. J., et al. (2014). Investigating variation in replicability: A many Labs replication project. Social Psychology, 45, 142–152. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178.
Lindsay, D. S. (2015). Replication in psychological science. Psychological Science, 26, 1827–1832. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615616374.
Martinson, B., Anderson, M. & de Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435, 737–738. https://doi.org/10.1038/435737a.
Maslej, M. M., Furukawa, T. A., Cipriani, A., Andrews, P. W., & Mulsant, B. H. (2020). Individual differences in response to antidepressants: A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials. JAMA Psychiatry, 77(8), 786. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.4815.
Maxwell, S. E., Lau, M. Y., & Howard, G. S. (2015). Is psychology suffering from a replication crisis? What does failure to replicate really mean? American Psychologist, 70, 487–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039400.
Öngür, D., & Bauchner, H. (2020). Notice of retraction: Maslej et al. Individual differences in response to antidepressants: A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials. JAMA Psychiatry, 77(6).
Nosek, B. A., & Lakens, D. (2014). Registered reports: A method to increase the credibility of published results. Social Psychology, 45, 137–141. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000192.
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716.
Perkel, J. M. (2022). How to fix your scientific coding errors. Nature, 602, 172–173. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-00217-0.
Rohrer, J. M., Tierney, W., Uhlmann, E. L., DeBruine, L. M., Heyman, T., Jones, B., Schmukle, S. C., Silberzahn, R., Willén, R. M., Carlsson, R., Lucas, R. E., Strand, J., Vazire, S., Witt, J. K., Zentall, T. R., Chabris, C. F., & Yarkoni, T. (2021). Putting the self in self-correction: Findings from the loss-of-confidence project. American Behavioral Scientist, 16(6), 1171–1191. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620964106.
Rosenberg, M. S. (2005). The file-drawer problem revisited: A general weighted method for calculating fail-safe numbers in meta-analysis. Evolution, 59, 464–468. https://doi.org/10.1554/04-602.
Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file-drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638–641. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638.
Sapunar, L. (2020, June 19). “Honest errors happen in science:” JAMA journal retracts paper on antidepressants. Retraction Watch. https://retractionwatch.com/2020/06/19/honest-errors-happen-in-science-jama-journal-retracts-paper-on-antidepressants/.
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632.
Strand, J. F., Brown, V. A., & Barbour, D. L. (2019). Talking points: A modulating circle reduces listening effort without improving speech recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin Review, 26, 291–297. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1489-7.
Strand, J. F., Brown, V. A., & Barbour, D. L. (2020). Talking points: A modulating circle increases listening effort without improving speech recognition in young adults. Psychonomic Bulletin Review, 27, 536–543. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01713-y.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2016). Silent or stealth retractions, the dangerous voices of the unknown, deleted literature. Publishing Research Quarterly, 32(1), 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-015-9439-y.
Thatcher, S. M. B., & Patel, P. C. (2011). Demographic faultlines: A meta-analysis of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1119–1139. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024167.
Volpe, A. (2022, July 13). How to admit you’re wrong: Admitting wrongdoing isn’t a failure, it’s an opportunity. Vox. https://www.vox.com/even-better/23198698/how-to-admit-youre-wrong.
Vuong, Q. H. (2020). The limitations of retraction notices and the heroic acts of authors who correct the scholarly record: An analysis of retractions of papers published from 1975 to 2019. Learned Publishing, 33(2), 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1282.
Xu, S. B., & Hu, G. (2022). Retraction stigma and its communication via retraction notices. Minerva, 60(3), 349–374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-022-09465-w.
Yeo-Teh, N. S. L., & Tang, B. L. (2021). An alarming retraction rate for scientific publications on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Accountability in Research, 28(1), 47–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2020.1782203.
Ziemann, M., Eren, Y., & El-Osta, A. (2016). Gene name errors are widespread in the scientific literature. Genome Biology, 17(1), 177. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-016-1044-7.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Human participants research ethics and informed consent statement
This article involved no data collected from human participants or analysis of data collected from human participants.
Conflict of Interest
The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
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
Ivory, J.D., Elson, M. A tale of three retractions: a call for standardized categorization and criteria in retraction statements. Curr Psychol 43, 16023–16029 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-05216-6
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-05216-6