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

Science and Engineering Ethics 24 (1):189-206 (2018)
Authors
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 considerations. These preliminary results suggest that scientists would welcome innovations to facilitate the process of self-retraction.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s11948-017-9894-2
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 38,062
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Empirical Developments in Retraction.B. K. Redman, H. N. Yarandi & J. F. Merz - 2008 - Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (11):807-809.
The Impact of Retraction on Citation Networks.Charisse R. Madlock-Brown & David Eichmann - 2015 - Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (1):127-137.
Retractions.Teresa Marques - 2018 - Synthese 195 (8):3335-3359.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2019-01-25

Total views
7 ( #676,413 of 2,312,749 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
7 ( #100,543 of 2,312,749 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature