Next Article in Journal / Special Issue
A Case-Control Comparison of Retracted and Non-Retracted Clinical Trials: Can Retraction Be Predicted?
Previous Article in Journal
Chinese Doctors Connecting to the English Publishing World: Literature Access, Editorial Services, and Training in Publication Skills
Previous Article in Special Issue
Combating Fraud in Medical Research: Research Validation Standards Utilized by the Journal of Surgical Radiology

A Novel Rubric for Rating the Quality of Retraction Notices

School for Science and Math at Vanderbilt, C-1320 Medical Center North, Nashville, TN 37232, USA
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Publications 2014, 2(1), 14-26;
Received: 21 November 2013 / Revised: 15 January 2014 / Accepted: 20 January 2014 / Published: 24 January 2014
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Misconduct in Scientific Publishing)
When a scientific article is found to be either fraudulent or erroneous, one course of action available to both the authors and the publisher is to retract said article. Unfortunately, not all retraction notices properly inform the reader of the problems with a retracted article. This study developed a novel rubric for rating and standardizing the quality of retraction notices, and used it to assess the retraction notices of 171 retracted articles from 15 journals. Results suggest the rubric to be a robust, if preliminary, tool. Analysis of the retraction notices suggest that their quality has not improved over the last 50 years, that it varies both between and within journals, and that it is dependent on the field of science, the author of the retraction notice, and the reason for retraction. These results indicate a lack of uniformity in the retraction policies of individual journals and throughout the scientific literature. The rubric presented in this study could be adopted by journals to help standardize the writing of retraction notices. View Full-Text
Keywords: research ethics; scientific retraction; research misconduct research ethics; scientific retraction; research misconduct
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Bilbrey, E.; O'Dell, N.; Creamer, J. A Novel Rubric for Rating the Quality of Retraction Notices. Publications 2014, 2, 14-26.

AMA Style

Bilbrey E, O'Dell N, Creamer J. A Novel Rubric for Rating the Quality of Retraction Notices. Publications. 2014; 2(1):14-26.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bilbrey, Emma, Natalie O'Dell, and Jonathan Creamer. 2014. "A Novel Rubric for Rating the Quality of Retraction Notices" Publications 2, no. 1: 14-26.

Find Other Styles

Article Access Map by Country/Region

Only visits after 24 November 2015 are recorded.
Back to TopTop