Ethical Guidelines for Article Retractions

Academic journals should follow several ethical standards when evaluating the retraction of published articles to safeguard the integrity of the scholarly record.

The Primary Purpose of Retraction The main purpose of retraction is to correct the literature and alert readers to articles that contain seriously flawed or erroneous content or data, such that their findings and conclusions cannot be relied upon. This unreliable content may stem from honest error, naive mistakes, or research misconduct. Retraction serves to ensure the integrity of the scholarly record.

Circumstances Where Retraction is Appropriate Editors should consider retracting a publication if they have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable. This can be due to:

Major error (e.g., miscalculation or experimental error).
Fabrication (e.g., of data) or falsification (e.g., image manipulation).
Plagiarism.
Redundant publication, where the findings have been published elsewhere without proper attribution to previous sources or disclosure to the editor, permission to republish, or justification. If redundant publication occurs, the journal that published first should issue a notice of redundant publication, but the journals that subsequently published the redundant article should retract it and state the reason.
Peer review manipulation.
Reuse of material or data without authorisation.
Copyright infringement or some other legal issue (e.g., libel, privacy, illegality).
Unethical research.
Failure to disclose a major competing interest that would have unduly influenced interpretations or recommendations.

If an institutional investigation, disciplinary hearing, or internal assessment uncovers behaviour that negatively impacts the reliability of the research record in terms of findings, conclusions, or attribution, the institution should inform the journal, and the journal should make post-publication amendments like retractions when provided with evidence.

When Retraction is Generally NOT Appropriate Retraction is usually not appropriate in certain situations:

When authorship is disputed, but there is no reason to doubt the validity of the findings. In such cases, the editor should inform those involved that the journal cannot adjudicate but will publish a correction. This aligns with the understanding that retraction is primarily about the reliability of the content, not authorship disputes, when the findings are valid.
If the main findings are still reliable and errors or concerns can be sufficiently addressed by a correction. A correction may be more appropriate if only a small part of the article reports flawed data or content, or if only a small section is plagiarised.
When an editor has inconclusive evidence to support retraction or is awaiting additional information, such as from an institutional investigation. In these cases, an expression of concern may be published in the interim.
If author conflicts of interest are reported post-publication but, in the editor's view, are unlikely to have influenced interpretations, recommendations, or conclusions.

Process and Considerations for Retraction Academic journals should have mechanisms for correcting, revising, or retracting articles after publication. Journals' policies on corrections and retractions should be visible on their website and refer to COPE's Core Practices. Editors and publishers are responsible for outlining their policies and procedures for handling issues like data falsification/fabrication and plagiarism. If made aware of an allegation of research misconduct, the editor or publisher should follow COPE's guidance or equivalent.

Key aspects of the process include:

The Retraction Notice: Retraction notices should be linked to the retracted article in all online versions where possible and clearly identify the retracted article, including its title and authors. The notice must be clearly identified as a retraction, distinct from other corrections. It should state who is retracting the article and the reason(s) for retraction. Notices should be objective, factual, and avoid inflammatory language. They should be published promptly and be freely available to all readers. Editors should attempt to negotiate with authors to agree on clear and informative wording, but should publish the retraction even if consensus cannot be reached, without unreasonable delay. The notice should enable readers to understand why the article is unreliable.

Who Issues the Retraction: While retractions may be issued jointly or on behalf of the journal's owner, the responsibility for the journal's content rests with the editor, who should always have the final decision. Editors may retract publications or issue expressions of concern even if some or all authors disagree. The notice should clearly identify who is retracting the article.

Speed of Retraction: Publications should be retracted as soon as possible after the editor is convinced that the publication is seriously flawed, misleading, or meets the criteria for retraction. Prompt retraction minimises the number of researchers who cite the erroneous work. Editors should not delay retraction simply because authors are uncooperative.

Informing Institutions and Authors: When editors or journals have credible grounds to suspect misconduct, this should be brought to the attention of the authors' institutions as early as possible. The decision to correct or retract is made by the journal and does not necessarily depend on an institutional finding of misconduct. While journals should ideally raise concerns with authors before contacting institutions, in rare cases of well-founded serious misconduct evidence, they may contact institutions first. Institutions should respond to journals if they request information about issues affecting published work's reliability. Journals should cooperate with investigations and respond to institutions' questions.

Handling Legal Threats: Authors may threaten legal action if they disagree with a retraction or a refusal to retract. Concerns over litigation can make editors reluctant to retract. Journal instructions should explain the policies on publication ethics and circumstances for retraction, which should be incorporated into author agreements. Authors usually wouldn't have grounds for legal action over a retraction or expression of concern that follows a suitable investigation and proper procedures. Legal advice may be helpful to ensure the wording is not considered defamatory and is limited to proven facts.

Retracted Content and Republication: Retracted articles should remain online and be clearly identified as retracted in all online sources. Retaining the original work ensures transparency. In extremely limited cases, the full article may be removed online (e.g., if defamatory, violates privacy, subject to a court order, or poses a serious health risk), but the metadata should be retained, and the notice should explain why the full article was removed. An author may republish parts of the work that were not found unreliable, but should transparently notify the new journal, citing the prior retraction and explaining corrections. In rare instances, a 'retract and republish' strategy may be used to transparently correct fundamentally flawed articles.

In summary, ethical evaluation of retraction prioritises correcting the scholarly record based on the reliability and integrity of the research findings and presentation, guided by transparent policies and procedures, often in collaboration with authors' institutions, while maintaining the journal's ultimate editorial responsibility.