On the Dearth of Retractions in Social Work: A Cross-Sectional Study of Ten Leading Journals

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the paper offers a valuable preliminary assessment and fosters meaningful discussion about research integrity in social work scholarship. However, several areas require refinement and elaboration to strengthen the manuscript for publication. Below are specific comments and suggestions organized by sections:

Abstract: Clearly defines the context and importance. However, it could benefit from explicitly stating the research method used (cross-sectional study), as this provides immediate clarity for readers.

Introduction: Comprehensive and informative. Nonetheless, the introduction could be further improved by briefly outlining the significance and implications of the absence of retractions specifically for the social work discipline, rather than broadly across biomedical and social sciences.

Literature Review: Thorough and well-supported with examples from various disciplines. However, authors could include additional literature explicitly addressing the ethical responsibilities and unique challenges in social work research to contextualise this study better. A clearer discussion linking literature on misconduct directly to the context of social work would further strengthen this section.

Methods: Clearly articulated; the sampling strategy (convenience sample) is acknowledged as preliminary. For future improvements, employing systematic or purposive sampling of journals based on clear criteria such as impact factor, readership, or geographical representation might yield stronger and more generalizable findings.

Clarify and justify the choice of keywords used ("retracted" and "retraction"). Did preliminary exploratory searches include synonyms or related terms such as "withdrawn" or "correction" explicitly?

Results: Clearly presented; however, given the importance of transparency, the manuscript would benefit from explicitly presenting results in a table summarizing search outcomes across each journal. More detailed reporting on interactions with editors-in-chief would be valuable, including insights into editors' perceived reasons for the absence of retractions.

Discussion: Offers valuable insights into potential explanations for findings. Nevertheless, the debate should delve deeper into why social work might differ from other fields in terms of retractions. For instance, cultural factors within the discipline, publication pressures, or structural disincentives could be explored more systematically.

The recommendations to improve peer review practices (both quantitative and qualitative) are helpful but would benefit from more straightforward, actionable steps for editors and reviewers to implement immediately.

Conclusion: Well-stated but could more clearly highlight actionable recommendations to improve editorial processes and promote research integrity within the discipline. Clarify more specifically why the topic is particularly relevant to social work rather than generalizing from broader literature.

Methodologiy: Recommend ways to enhance the consistency and reproducibility of the methodological framework, such as explicit search protocols and comprehensive search terms.

Result: Commendable commitment to open science, but please consider clearly detailing in the manuscript the reasons behind data choices and how readers can practically engage with the provided OSF repository.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Recommendations: Strengthen the manuscript by providing concrete, actionable steps explicitly tailored to social work journal editors and institutions.

Author Response

Please see attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a timely and well-written study on the lack of retractions in social work journals. It offers a valuable empirical contribution to the broader discussion of research integrity and editorial practices in the social sciences. The methodology is clearly described, and the findings are presented transparently. However, I have several suggestions for improving the clarity, structure, and contextual grounding of the manuscript:

1. Introduction (Lines ~1–60): The introduction illustrates the limitations of peer review through several well-known misconduct cases. While informative, their relevance to social work is limited, and the detailed narratives take up considerable space without integration into the main analysis. I suggest retaining one or two key examples and summarizing the rest more briefly to maintain focus and improve cohesion.
2. Section 4, Lines 263–272: The discussion lacks a brief literature review of disciplinary differences in retraction practices. Prior meta-research (e.g., Fanelli, 2013; Fang et al., 2012) has documented field-level variation, especially between biomedical and social sciences. The author should situate their findings on social work within this broader context to clarify the study’s contribution.
3. Section 4.2, Lines 289–300: The opening paragraph sets up a discussion of tools to support research integrity, but the phrasing is vague and informal (e.g., “I’d like to focus…”). Please consider rephrasing to an academic tone and briefly previewing the tools discussed later to improve logical flow.
4. Preregistration in qualitative research (Lines 338–346): The discussion overstates the generalizability of preregistration. This practice remains debated and context-dependent, particularly in fields like social work where flexible and emergent designs are common and institutional support for preregistration is limited. Please clarify its scope and avoid framing it as a universal standard.
5. Conclusion (Lines 355–365): The conclusion ends on a problem statement rather than a forward-looking insight or recommendation. For stronger impact, I suggest restating the key finding (i.e., the lack of retractions in the field) and following with implications or actions that may improve editorial practices going forward.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic addressed in this article is timely, as it highlights the almost total absence of retractions in social work journals, in an academic context where self-correction is becoming increasingly important. This research makes a new contribution, pointing to a possible lack of transparency and editorial integrity in the field.

 

 

My observations for improving this article are:

 

1. The abstract is not accurate enough to reflect all the components of a scientific study: aim, methodology, results, conclusions. It is written more as a narrative summary of the context and possible implications than as a technical summary of empirical research. I recommend including the following elements: a) The period and selection criteria for journals; b) The number of articles analyzed or the data source (e.g., academic databases); c) Any quantitative or statistical results; d) The main causes identified for the lack of retractions.
2. The introduction section is well written overall—well researched, logically coherent, and argumentative, with a clear structure and relevant examples. Explicit recommendations to improve this section are: a) although the text is divided into 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, there is no clear distinction between the general introduction and the specific purpose of the paper. Add a short subsection 1.4 Purpose of the study / research objectives at the end of this section, clarifying what the study aims to achieve; b) some formulations are slightly redundant or too long. E.g.: “journals serve as mediums by which to assess...”; “ones that rely on the trust of all parties involved (i.e., authors, reviewers, and editors)”; c) Conceptual clarification for “journal agnostic peer review” – this is a specialized term that requires an explanatory note for clarity; d) Many examples are provided, but the transition to their relevance for social work is not clearly marked.
3. In the Methodology section: a) specify the exact period of the data analyzed (e.g., “all articles published between 2000–2023”); b) add a brief explanation of how ambiguous cases were addressed; c) Mention whether you received responses from all editors and how their information was integrated into the analysis.
4. In the Results section: a) clarify the different treatment of the terms “withdrawn” vs. “retracted”; b) Mention whether there were any attempts at double-checking or internal validation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am pleased to see the updated version of the paper, which has been significantly improved based on the review comments. However, Table 2 is not aligned with the required paper format and should be adjusted accordingly. I recommend removing the footnotes from the main pages and incorporating the content into the main sections of the paper. Additionally, the author should correct the grammatical errors present in the abstract and throughout the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I recommend accepting it in its current form.

Author Response

Thank you again for taking the time to review this manuscript and its revision. Your helpful and thoughtful feedback has undoubtedly improved its overall quality.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf