| Title |
Doing the Right Thing: A Qualitative Investigation of Retractions Due to Unintentional Error
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-017-9894-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mohammad Hosseini, Medard Hilhorst, Inez de Beaufort, Daniele Fanelli |
| Abstract |
Retractions solicited by authors following the discovery of an unintentional error-what we henceforth call a "self-retraction"-are a new phenomenon of growing importance, about which very little is known. Here we present results of a small qualitative study aimed at gaining preliminary insights about circumstances, motivations and beliefs that accompanied the experience of a self-retraction. We identified retraction notes that unambiguously reported an honest error and that had been published between the years 2010 and 2015. We limited our sample to retractions with at least one co-author based in the Netherlands, Belgium, United Kingdom, Germany or a Scandinavian country, and we invited these authors to a semi-structured interview. Fourteen authors accepted our invitation. Contrary to our initial assumptions, most of our interviewees had not originally intended to retract their paper. They had contacted the journal to request a correction and the decision to retract had been made by journal editors. All interviewees reported that having to retract their own publication made them concerned for their scientific reputation and career, often causing considerable stress and anxiety. Interviewees also encountered difficulties in communicating with the journal and recalled other procedural issues that had unnecessarily slowed down the process of self-retraction. Intriguingly, however, all interviewees reported how, contrary to their own expectations, the self-retraction had brought no damage to their reputation and in some cases had actually improved it. We also examined the ethical motivations that interviewees ascribed, retrospectively, to their actions and found that such motivations included a combination of moral and prudential (i.e. pragmatic) considerations. These preliminary results suggest that scientists would welcome innovations to facilitate the process of self-retraction. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Scientists | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 59 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Professor | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 12% |
| Unknown | 20 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 8 | 14% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 8% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 5% |
| Psychology | 3 | 5% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 25% |
| Unknown | 22 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 December 2021.
All research outputs
#13,682,250
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#603
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,298
of 312,505 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#16
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,505 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.