Rethinking the dreaded r-word

See allHide authors and affiliations

Science  09 Jun 2017:
Vol. 356, Issue 6342, pp. 998
DOI: 10.1126/science.356.6342.998

You are currently viewing the summary.

View Full Text

Log in to view the full text

Log in through your institution

Log in through your institution


Two groups of experts say it's time to develop alterna1tives for the word "retraction," which carries a strong connotation of scientific misconduct that makes scientists who made honest mistakes reluctant to step forward. Some journals also want more options for a troubled paper than either a correction—used for minor errors—or a wholesale retraction. A December 2016 workshop at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, resulted in a proposal for a more granular system that has 14 solutions for different situations; retractions would remain for misconduct, but five other terms would cover papers withdrawn for other reasons. Meanwhile, a working group of the Committee on Publication Ethics posted a plan on bioRxiv in March that would simply retire the word retraction altogether and call everything from a minor correction to a complete retraction an "amendment."