GW Journal of Ethics in Publishing 1 (1) (2022)
AbstractIn this article, we discuss the continued circulation and use of retracted science as a complex problem: Multiple stakeholders throughout the publishing ecosystem hold competing perceptions of this problem and its possible solutions. We describe how we used a participatory design process model to co-develop recommendations for addressing this problem with stakeholders in the Alfred P. Sloan-funded project, Reducing the Inadvertent Spread of Retracted Science (RISRS). After introducing the four core RISRS recommendations, we discuss how the issue of retraction-related stigma gives rise to recommendation #4, Educate stakeholders about retraction and pre- and post-publication stewardship of the scholarly record. This recommendation is important for training publishing professionals and realizing this recommendation will require further collaborative design work across scholarly communications. We highlight ongoing stakeholder work which is now re-starting the design cycle. We conclude with a discussion of ongoing activities facilitating uptake and refinement of RISRS research and the implementation agenda.
Similar books and articles
Retractions in Science.K. Brad Wray & Line Edslev Andersen - 2018 - Scientometrics 117 (3):2009-2019.
Propagation of Errors in Citation Networks: A Study Involving the Entire Citation Network of a Widely Cited Paper Published in, and Later Retracted From, the Journal Nature.Harm Nijveen & Paul E. van der Vet - 2016 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 1 (1).
The Impact of Retraction on Citation Networks.Charisse R. Madlock-Brown & David Eichmann - 2015 - Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (1):127-137.
Citation of Retracted Articles in Engineering: A Study of the Web of Science Database.Priscila Rubbo, Luiz Alberto Pilatti & Claudia Tania Picinin - 2019 - Ethics and Behavior 29 (8):661-679.
Perpetuation of Retracted Publications Using the Example of the Scott S. Reuben Case: Incidences, Reasons and Possible Improvements.Helmar Bornemann-Cimenti, Istvan S. Szilagyi & Andreas Sandner-Kiesling - 2016 - Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (4):1063-1072.
Reducing the Inadvertent Spread of Retracted Science: Recommendations From the RISRS Report.Jodi Schneider, Nathan D. Woods, Randi Proescholdt & The Risrs Team - 2022 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 7 (1).
Retractions in Cancer Research: A Systematic Survey.Michelle Ghert, Nathan Evaniew, Kamal Bali & Anthony Bozzo - 2017 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 2 (1).
Retraction of Published Research.David Celiberti & Frank Cicero - 2020 - Science in Autism Treatment 17 (11):1-4.
Retractions in the Scientific Literature: Is the Incidence of Research Fraud Increasing?R. Grant Steen - 2011 - Journal of Medical Ethics 37 (4):249-253.
Retracted Publications in the Biomedical Literature From Open Access Journals.Tao Wang, Qin-Rui Xing, Hui Wang & Wei Chen - 2019 - Science and Engineering Ethics 25 (3):855-868.
Why Unethical Papers Should Be Retracted.William Bülow, Tove E. Godskesen, Gert Helgesson & Stefan Eriksson - 2021 - Journal of Medical Ethics 47 (12):e32-e32.
Retraction: The “Other Face” of Research Collaboration?Li Tang, Guangyuan Hu, Yang Sui, Yuhan Yang & Cong Cao - 2020 - Science and Engineering Ethics 26 (3):1681-1708.
Retractions in the Scientific Literature: Do Authors Deliberately Commit Research Fraud?R. Grant Steen - 2011 - Journal of Medical Ethics 37 (2):113-117.
Learning from Retracted Papers Authored by the Highly Cited Iran-affiliated Researchers: Revisiting Research Policies and a Key Message to Clarivate Analytics.Negin Kamali, Farid Rahimi & Amin Talebi Bezmin Abadi - 2022 - Science and Engineering Ethics 28 (2):1-10.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads