Retraction Guidelines

WWW.PUBLICATIONETHICS.ORG

RETRACTION GUIDELINES

Summary

Journal editors should consider retracting a publication if:

 • theyhaveclearevidencethatthendingsareunreliable,eitherasaresultofmisconduct(e.g.data

fabrication)orhonesterror(e.g.miscalculationorexperimentalerror)

 • thendingshavepreviouslybeenpublishedelsewherewithoutpropercrossreferencing,permissionor

justication(i.e.casesofredundantpublication)

 • itconstitutesplagiarism

 • itreportsunethicalresearch

Journaleditorsshouldconsiderissuinganexpressionofconcernif:

 • theyreceiveinconclusiveevidenceofresearchorpublicationmisconductbytheauthors

 • thereisevidencethatthendingsareunreliablebuttheauthors’institutionwillnotinvestigatethecase

 • theybelievethataninvestigationintoallegedmisconductrelatedtothepublicationeitherhasnotbeen,

orwouldnotbe,fairandimpartialorconclusive

 • aninvestigationisunderwaybutajudgementwillnotbeavailableforaconsiderabletime

Journal editors should consider issuing a correction if:

 • asmallportionofanotherwisereliablepublicationprovestobemisleading(especiallybecauseofhonest

error)

 • theauthor/contributorlistisincorrect(i.e.adeservingauthorhasbeenomittedorsomebodywhodoes

not meet authorship criteria has been included)

Retractions are not usually appropriate if:

 • achangeofauthorshipisrequiredbutthereisnoreasontodoubtthevalidityofthendings

Notices of retraction should:

 • belinkedtotheretractedarticlewhereverpossible(i.e.inallelectronicversions)

 • clearlyidentifytheretractedarticle(e.g.byincludingthetitleandauthorsintheretractionheading)

 • beclearlyidentiedasaretraction(i.e.distinctfromothertypesofcorrectionorcomment)

 • bepublishedpromptlytominimizeharmfuleffectsfrommisleadingpublications

ARCHIVED

YOU ARE VIEWING AN ARCHIVED VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT

View the latest version at

https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4

WWW.PUBLICATIONETHICS.ORG

RETRACTION GUIDELINES

 • befreelyavailabletoallreaders(i.e.notbehindaccessbarriersoravailableonlytosubscribers)

 • statewhoisretractingthearticle

 • statethereason(s)forretraction(todistinguishmisconductfromhonesterror)

 • avoidstatementsthatarepotentiallydefamatoryorlibellous

The purpose of retraction

Retraction is a mechanism for correcting the literature and alerting readers to publications that contain such

seriouslyawedorerroneousdatathattheirndingsandconclusionscannotbereliedupon.Unreliabledatamay

result from honest error or from research misconduct.

Retractionsarealsousedtoalertreaderstocasesofredundantpublication(i.e.whenauthorspresentthesame

datainseveralpublications),plagiarism,andfailuretodiscloseamajorcompetinginterestlikelytoinuence

interpretations or recommendations.

Themainpurposeofretractionsistocorrecttheliteratureandensureitsintegrityratherthantopunishauthorswho

misbehave.

Whatformshouldaretractiontake?

Noticesofretractionshouldmentionthereasonsandbasisfortheretraction,todistinguishcasesofmisconduct

fromthoseofhonesterror;theyshouldalsospecifywhoisretractingthearticle.Theyshouldbepublishedinall

versionsofthejournal(i.e.printand/orelectronic).Itishelpfultoincludetheauthorsandtitleoftheretractedarticle

in the retraction heading.

Retractedarticlesshouldbeclearlyidentiedassuchinallelectronicsources(e.g.onthejournalwebsiteandany

bibliographicdatabases).Editorsareresponsibleforensuringthatretractionsarelabelledinsuchawaythatthey

areidentiedbybibliographicdatabases(whichshouldalsoincludealinktotheretractedarticle).Theretraction

should appear on all electronic searches for the retracted publication.

Retractedarticlesshouldnotberemovedfromprintedcopiesofthejournal(e.g.inlibraries)norfromelectronic

archivesbuttheirretractedstatusshouldbeindicatedasclearlyaspossible.

ARCHIVED

WWW.PUBLICATIONETHICS.ORG

RETRACTION GUIDELINES

Whichpublicationsshouldberetracted?

Ifonlyasmallpartofanarticlereportsaweddata,andespeciallyifthisistheresultofgenuineerror,thenthe

problemisbestrectiedbyacorrectionorerratum.(Thetermerratumusuallyreferstoaproductionerror,causedby

thejournal.Thetermcorrigendum(orcorrection)usuallyreferstoanauthorerror.)Partialretractionsarenothelpful

becausetheymakeitdifcultforreaderstodeterminethestatusofthearticleandwhichpartsmaybereliedupon.

Similarly,ifonlyasmallsectionofanarticle(e.g.afewsentencesinthediscussion)isplagiarised,editorsshould

considerwhetherreaders(andtheplagiarisedauthor)wouldbebestservedbyacorrection(whichcouldnotethe

factthattextwasusedwithoutappropriateacknowledgement)ratherthanretractingtheentirearticlewhichmay

containsound,originaldatainotherparts.

Retractionshouldusuallybereservedforpublicationsthataresoseriouslyawed(forwhateverreason)thattheir

ndingsorconclusionsshouldnotbereliedupon.

Ifredundantpublicationhasoccurred(i.e.authorshavepublishedthesamedataorarticleinmorethanonejournal

withoutappropriatejustication,permissionorcrossreferencing)thejournalthatrstpublishedthearticlemay

issueanoticeofredundantpublicationbutshouldnotretractthearticleunlessthendingsareunreliable.Any

journalsthatsubsequentlypublisharedundantarticleshouldretractitandstatethereasonfortheretraction.

Ifanarticleissubmittedtomorethanonejournalsimultaneously,andisacceptedandpublishedinbothjournals

(eitherelectronicallyorinprint)atthesametime,precedencemaybedeterminedbythedateonwhichalicenceto

publishoracopyrighttransferagreementwassignedbytheauthors.

Incasesofpartialoverlap(i.e.whenauthorspresentsomenewndingsinanarticlethatalsocontainsasubstantial

amountofpreviouslypublishedinformation)editorsneedtoconsiderwhetherreadersarebestservediftheentire

articleisretractedorwhetheritwouldbebesttoissueanoticeofredundantpublicationclarifyingwhichaspects

hadbeenpublishedpreviouslyandprovidingappropriatecross-referencestotheearlierwork.Thiswilldependon

theamountofoverlap.Editorsshouldbearinmindthatthemainpurposeofretractionsistocorrecttheliterature

andensureitsintegrityratherthantopunishauthorswhomisbehave.

Onlypublisheditemscanberetracted.Guidelinesondealingwithredundantpublicationsidentiedinsubmitted

manuscriptscanbefoundintherelevantCOPEowchart[http://publicationethics.org/les/u2/01A_Redundant_

Submitted.pdf].Postinganalversiononawebsiteconstitutespublicationevenifanarticlehasnotappeared(or

willnotappear)inprint.Ifanarticleisretractedbeforeitappearsintheprintversionofajournal,theelectronic

versionshouldberetainedonthejournal’swebsitewithaclearnoticeofretractionanditshouldbeincludedon

bibliographicdatabases(e.g.withadigitalobjectidentier[doi]orotherpermanentcitationthatwilllocateit)

evenifitdoesnotappearintheprintedjournalandthereforedoesnotreceiveapageallocation.Thisisbecause

electronicversionsmayalreadyhavebeenaccessedandcitedbyresearcherswhoneedtobealertedtothefactthat

the article has been retracted.

ARCHIVED

WWW.PUBLICATIONETHICS.ORG

RETRACTION GUIDELINES

Whoshouldissuetheretraction?

Articlesmayberetractedbytheirauthor(s)orbythejournaleditor.Insomecases,retractionsareissuedjointlyor

onbehalfofthejournal’sowner(e.g.alearnedsocietyorpublisher).However,sinceresponsibilityforthejournal’s

contentrestswiththeeditors/heshouldalwayshavethenaldecisionaboutretractingmaterial.Journaleditors

mayretractpublications(orissueexpressionsofconcern)evenifallorsomeoftheauthorsrefusetoretractthe

publicationthemselves.

Whenshouldapublicationberetracted?

Publicationsshouldberetractedassoonaspossibleafterthejournaleditorisconvincedthatthepublicationis

seriouslyawedandmisleading(orisredundantorplagiarised).Promptretractionshouldminimizethenumberof

researcherswhocitetheerroneouswork,actonitsndingsordrawincorrectconclusions,suchasfrom‘double

counting’redundantpublicationsinmeta-analysesorsimilarinstances.

Ifeditorshaveconvincingevidencethataretractionisrequiredtheyshouldnotdelayretractionsimplybecause

theauthorsarenotcooperative.However,ifanallegationofmisconductrelatedtoapotentialretractionresultsin

adisciplinaryhearingorinstitutionalinvestigation,itisnormallyappropriatetowaitfortheoutcomeofthisbefore

issuingaretraction(butanexpressionofconcernmaybepublishedtoalertreadersintheinterim–seebelow).

Whatshouldeditorsdointhefaceofinconclusiveevidenceaboutapublication’sreliability?

Ifconclusiveevidenceaboutthereliabilityofapublicationcannotbeobtained(e.g.ifauthorsproduceconicting

accountsofthecase,authors’institutionsrefusetoinvestigateallegedmisconductortoreleasethendingsof

suchinvestigations,orifinvestigationsappearnottohavebeencarriedoutfairlyoraretakinganunreasonably

longtimetoreachaconclusion)editorsshouldissueanexpressionofconcernratherthanretractingthepublication

immediately.

Suchexpressionsofconcern,likeretractionnotices,shouldbeclearlylinkedtotheoriginalpublication(i.e.in

electronic databases and by including the author and title of the original publication as a heading) and should state

thereasonsfortheconcern.Ifmoreconclusiveevidenceaboutthepublication’sreliabilitybecomesavailablelater,

theexpressionofconcernshouldbereplacedbyanoticeofretraction(ifthearticleisshowntobeunreliable)orby

anexoneratingstatementlinkedtotheexpressionofconcern(ifthearticleisshowntobereliableandtheauthor

exonerated).

Shouldretractionbeappliedincasesofdisputedauthorship?

Authorssometimesrequestthatarticlesareretractedwhenauthorshipisdisputedafterpublication.Ifthereisno

reasontodoubtthevalidityofthendingsorthereliabilityofthedataitisnotappropriatetoretractapublication

solelyonthegroundsofanauthorshipdispute.Insuchcases,thejournaleditorshouldinformthoseinvolvedinthe

disputethats/hecannotadjudicateinsuchcasesbutwillbewillingtopublishacorrectiontotheauthor/contributor

listiftheauthors/contributors(ortheirinstitutions)provideappropriateproofthatsuchachangeisjustied.

ARCHIVED

WWW.PUBLICATIONETHICS.ORG

RETRACTION GUIDELINES

(Forauthorshipdisputesoccurringbeforepublication,seetherelevantCOPEowcharts.http://publicationethics.org/

les/u2/04A_Author_Add_Submitted.pdf and http://publicationethics.org/les/u2/04B_Author_Remove_Submitted.

pdf)

Canauthorsdissociatethemselvesfromaretractedpublication?

Ifretractionisduetotheactionsofsome,butnotall,authorsofapublication,thenoticeofretractionshould

mentionthis.However,mosteditorsconsiderthatauthorshipentailssomedegreeofjointresponsibilityforthe

integrityofthereportedresearchsoitisnotappropriateforauthorstodissociatethemselvesfromaretracted

publicationeveniftheywerenotdirectlyculpableofanymisconduct.

Aretheregroundsforlegalproceedingsifanauthorsuesajournalforretracting,orrefusingtoretract,a

publication?

Authorswhodisagreewitharetraction(orwhoserequesttoretractapublicationisrefused)sometimesthreaten

journaleditorswithlegalaction.Concernoverlitigationcanmakeeditorsreluctanttoretractarticles,especiallyin

the face of opposition from authors.

Journals’instructionsforauthorsshouldexplaintheretractionprocedureanddescribethecircumstancesunder

whicharticlesmightberetracted.Thisinformationshouldbeincorporated(e.g.byreferences)intoanypublishing

agreementsandbroughttotheauthors’attention.However,evenifthepublishingagreementorjournalinstructions

donotsetoutspecicconditionsforretraction,authorsusuallywouldnothavegroundsfortakinglegalaction

againstajournalovertheactofretractionifitfollowsasuitableinvestigationandproperprocedures.

However,legaladvicemaybehelpfultodetermineappropriatewordingforanoticeofretractionorexpressionof

concerntoensurethatthesearenotdefamatoryorlibellous.Nevertheless,retractionnoticesshouldalwaysmention

thereason(s)forretractiontodistinguishhonesterrorfrommisconduct.

Wheneverpossible,editorsshouldnegotiatewithauthorsandattempttoagreeaformofwordingthatisclearand

informativetoreadersandacceptabletoallparties.Ifauthorsconsenttothewordingofaretractionstatement,this

providesdefenceagainstalibelclaim.However,prolongednegotiationsaboutwordingshouldnotbeallowedto

delaythepublicationofaretractionunreasonablyandeditorsshouldpublishretractionsevenifconsensuscannot

be reached.

ARCHIVED

WWW.PUBLICATIONETHICS.ORG

RETRACTION GUIDELINES