How to stop the errors and retain the real: Researchers need transparency, better indexing, and a willingness to look again at the paper they intend to cite

Baker, Monya

Permalink

https://hdl.handle.net/2142/108371 Copy

Description

Title

How to stop the errors and retain the real: Researchers need transparency, better indexing, and a willingness to look again at the paper they intend to cite

Author(s)

Baker, Monya

Issue Date

2020

Keyword(s)

• citation of retracted papers
• CrossMark
• CrossRef
• Post-publication review
• Reference-tracking software
• Abstracting and indexing
• Flagging retracted papers
• Prominence of retracted status
• Transparency of retraction status
• Withdrawal of preprints
• Partial retraction

Abstract

Papers are cited for years after they are retracted, usually without any indication that they are no longer officially part of the scientific literature. Many people citing these works likely do not know about the retractions: once a citation is recorded in researchers’ reference-tracking software, they may never look at it again. Journals and indices need to do a better job of flagging papers that have been retracted or corrected, and abstracts, indexing and related surveys need to do a better job propagating that information. Once a researcher does find a flag, it is not always clear what to do. One potential solution is for journals to include a recommendation within a retraction notice about whether and how it should be cited. The ideal solution is to provide a much transparency around a retraction as possible, including the cause, whether there is consensus between authors and between authors and editors, who initiated the retraction, and the role of any post-publication review. Of course, the value of such transparency still depends on researchers’ ability to find retraction notices and their willingness to read them.

Type of Resource

text

Language

en

Permalink

http://hdl.handle.net/2142/108371

Owning Collections