Keep calm and be transparent: advice from scientists who retracted their papers
Briefly

Keep calm and be transparent: advice from scientists who retracted their papers
"If you know you made a mistake, you've got to reverse it. King was pleasantly surprised to see some scientists celebrating her decision online, with one bioinformatics researcher stating: One reason for loving science is how graciously we sometimes deal with errors. Research has shown that when authors self-retract because of honest mistakes, their earlier work continues to be cited."
"I completely understand why people are scared about it, but correcting the scientific literature is important, says Ivan Oransky, co-founder of media organization Retraction Watch, which maintains the world's most comprehensive database of scientific retractions. Oransky hopes to incentivize researchers with the Ctrl-Z Award - a reference to the 'undo' command on a keyboard - launched this week by the Center for Scientific Integrity."
"Retractions, which have long been associated with misconduct or poor scientific practice, can carry a lot of stigma. As of a decade ago, only about 22% of retractions resulted from authors self-reporting errors, rather than other scientists raising concerns to journals. Authors whose papers are retracted often stop publishing, especially if the retractions are well publicized."
Evolutionary biologist Nicole King retracted a Science paper containing technical errors in her data-analysis approach. Historically, retractions carried significant stigma, with only 22% resulting from author self-reporting a decade ago, often ending publishing careers. King's decision to retract received unexpected online support from the scientific community. Research indicates that self-retractions for honest mistakes do not harm citation rates of prior work. Ivan Oransky from Retraction Watch emphasizes that correcting scientific literature is essential. The Center for Scientific Integrity launched the Ctrl-Z Award to incentivize researchers who openly retract flawed studies, reflecting efforts to normalize honest error correction in science.
Read at Nature
Unable to calculate read time
[
|
]