Talk:Retraction in academic publishing

Schön affair

"With retracted articles from both Science and Nature the number of retracted articles with questionable data from physicist Jan Hendrik Schön reaches 12."

The Jan Hendrik Schön page says 15. Anyone know for sure? JWSchmidt 00:06, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, since I wrote most of Jan Hendrik Schön I'm going to say I was probably right when I said 15. Don't remember why though... :) I got info mostly from the external links on that page. moink 00:09, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My source was Science, Vol 299, Issue 5603, 31 , 3 January 2003

"In the latest round of backpedaling, officials at the American Physical Society (APS) and the American Institute of Physics (AIP) announced last month that they were issuing retractions for 12 papers Schön and co-authors had published in their journals."

I mis-read the above to say that the total was 12, but I now think it must be more than 12. JWSchmidt 00:15, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Poetry from the main page

So... what the heck IS a "retraction poem" ? 68.39.174.238 09:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

"I take it back

Don't sue me,

Even though you know it's true -

I can't afford to fight you.

I'll tell them

Whatever you desire;

The world will think you honest

And me insincere"

by 24.64.223.203 13:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

definition of "retraction" is too loose

The current article might be interpreted to mean that any correction of an error is a retraction but this is not current usage.

The NYT has a nice article on the differences between retractions and corrections.

Here is what Merriam-Webster says on retraction and retract:

Main Entry: re·trac·tion

Pronunciation: ri-'trak-sh&n

Function: noun

1 : an act of recanting; specifically : a statement made by one retracting

2 : an act of retracting : the state of being retracted

3 : the ability to retract

and

Main Entry: re·tract

Pronunciation: ri-'trakt

Function: verb

Etymology: Middle English, from Latin retractus, past participle of retrahere -- more at RETREAT

transitive senses

1 : to draw back or in <cats retract their claws>

2 a : TAKE BACK, WITHDRAW <retract a confession> b : DISAVOW

intransitive senses

1 : to draw or pull back

2 : to recant or disavow something

A retraction is a withdrawal of the main point of an article (or statement). While a correction may harm the credibility of the article or statement it does not withdraw the underlying point article.

Example: if we start with this statement:

"Bonnie and Clyde were killed in a shoot out with police today. They were both wearing brown suits at the time of their death".

In this example statement the death of notorious criminals is the main point being made. The cloths worn by Bonnie and Clyde at the time of death, while perhaps interesting, is not the key point of the statement.

and then consider the following two corrections:

(1) "It was previously reported that Bonnie and Clyde were wearing brown suits at the time of their death. This is incorrect. They were wearing denim jeans and T-shirts at the time of their death"

(2) "It was previously reported thta Bonnie and Clyde were killed in a shoot out with police. This is incorrect, they are still at large and believed to be alive".

In the first correction above a factual inaccuracy is corrected but the key point of the original statement is unchanged. This is generally viewed as a correction. In the second correction above the underlying point of the original statement is changed. This is the generally accepted meaning of a retraction.

While all retractions are corrections, not all corrections are retractions. Funkyj 19:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

MMR-autism link retraction

How do we want to handle the notation regarding the recent MMR vaccine controversy, which recently saw a retraction published in The Lancet medical journal for its prior findings and the vaccine's alleged link to autism in children? I suppose it would be a brief explanation, a link to the main article and a source, but I'm not sure how one should state it. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 02:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)]]

examples

Is this going to be an exhaustive list of retractions? Or just some selected examples? The first seems almost unattainable, the second would need clear criteria for what to include and what not. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Well said, I agree the latter should take precedence and the former be extended as good resources become available to form: List of Notable Retracted Articles. The "for Political Reasons" section could perhaps form the basis of "historical examples" if good citations could be provided. 12.19.144.98 (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• I start feeling more and more that the inclusion of examples here is wrong. Retraction Watch lists more cases in a month than this whole article has. This has two implications: 1/ Including all those retractions is going to lead to an unwieldy article, writing it will be almost infeasible, andit will never be even close to being complete. 2/ It seems very unjust to only highlight some cases here, based on some haphazard criteria. Unless somebody comes up with a good reason to keep these examples, I will delete them in a few days. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Good comment Guillaume2303. I will begin deletion. Sietecolores (talk) 12:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, such self-selection risks being OR, or carrying suspicions of animosity against certain individuals. Listing Galileo from 1663 along with names and dates from the 2010s seems a bit silly to me. The content is also unsatisfactory in parts: "The most common reasons for the retraction of articles are scientific misconduct" is a very bold claim to make without references. I have tagged it. There is also no suggestion in the Scientific misconduct definitions that "serious errors" is classed as misconduct. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Should this page be moved?

This page (except for the vaguely worded lead) seems to be all about retractions of scientific articles. Given this discrepancy and the vague title of the current article, I think it should be moved to retractions in science or something like that, and the lead reworded--perhaps it can be replaced with the current article's "retraction in science" section. Everymorning (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it should. Or, to "Retraction (science)", or to a descriptive title as you suggest, but perhaps not limited to science, as in for example, "Retractions in academic publishing". See section #Unfocused, below. Mathglot (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Done: uncontroversial move. Boud (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Unfocused

This article is unfocused and appears to be about two different things. As User:Everymorning User:IntoThinAir stated above, there is a disconnect between the lead and the entire rest of the article. Either the title of the article should be changed to reflect most of the content and the lead reworked to reflect it, or else if we keep the current title and lead, then the body should be significantly expanded to match the scope of the title. In its current state, the article is neither fish nor fowl. Mathglot (talk) 03:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I am leaning in favor of splitting out "Retractions in academic publishing", since it is the most notable case.

At the first glance I thought that the general "Retraction" article cannot be nothing more but a dicdef plus example farm, but later I realized that an important piece is missing: legal aspects of retraction, which is pretty generic. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Interesting point. Is a publisher legally obliged to continue publishing an accepted article? Does it have to follow the principles of the presumption of innocence and habeas corpus? Could a retraction not accepted by the author(s) be considered to be libelling the author(s)? It would certainly damage their reputations. Well, it's obvious that any author trying legal action against a publisher for retraction would risk the Streisand effect virally expanding attention on an already embarrassing situation - not just the academic community, but possibly much of the online world, for a day or two, might hear about the situation... Anyway, if there are any RS's, go ahead and add the info. Boud (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Retraction (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: BIOL4410 senior seminar

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 7 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lilmisnicole, Viri0831 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Kitterbitter160, Lmlr, NeptunePlayss, Dmath1117, Ajb074.

— Assignment last updated by Kitterbitter160 (talk) 00:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)