Reese Richardson

The following is an excerpt from the preface of my newly-defended PhD dissertation in Interdisciplinary Biological Sciences, titled “Metascientific studies in reproducibility, bias and fraud”.

In 1947, a young Osamu Shimomura enrolled in the College of Pharmaceutical Sciences of Nagasaki Medical College [1]. The college had been destroyed in the bombing of Nagasaki and had relocated to a temporary campus near Shimomura’s home.

The scientific enterprise is a human enterprise

There may be hundreds of papers out there reporting on experimental results in cell lines that do not actually exist.

A cell line is a population of cells that can be grown in a laboratory culture indefinitely.

Non-verifiable cell lines: immortal or imaginary?

Could the fraudulent work of one researcher be responsible for the rise of curcumin research?

Bharat B. Aggarwal is an Indian-American biochemist who worked at MD Anderson Cancer Center from 1989 to 2015. His research focused on potential anti-cancer effects and therapeutic applications of herbs and spices. Aggarwal was particularly drawn to curcumin, a non-toxic compound found in turmeric that has long been staple in Ayurvedic systems of medicine. He authored more than 120 articles about the compound from 1994 to 2020.

The King of Curcumin: a case study in the consequences of large-scale research fraud

A few months ago, I had the pleasure of giving a talk at Metascience 2023 in Washington D.C. about a strategy research paper mills can use to thwart science integrity measures: journal hopping. You can find the talk below:  If you would like to learn more about research paper mills, I suggest starting with our 2022 review about paper mills in human gene research.

Journal hopping by research paper mills after a preferred journal is de-indexed (Metascience 2023)

Collecting arguments on the stigma surrounding retraction

Header image by Sydney Richardson.

On June 5, head of Research Integrity and Resolutions at Springer Nature Tim Kersjes presented “Requiem for the Retraction: why proposals for ‘honest retractions’ fail in their objective to promote and encourage the self-correction of science” at the 2024 World Conference on Research Integrity (WCRI). Included was the following slide, later shared by Maria Zalm, senior editor and team manager of

How shameful should retraction be?

Businesses have emerged that sell authorship to aspiring doctors to make their residency applications more competitive.

Science

and

 Retraction Watch

just released a large investigation into what I consider a new breed of paper mill.

A new breed of paper mill targeting international medical graduates

A citation manipulation scheme so easy, even a cat can do it.

Before we get to the adventures of

 Felis domesticus scholasticus

promised by the title, some important background. A couple of weeks ago, Nick Wise showed me an advertisement from a paper mill offering to boost the buyer’s citation count and h-index on their Google Scholar profile. The advertisement links to several success stories consisting of unredacted “before” and “after” screenshots of clients’ Google Scholar profiles.

Engineering the world’s highest cited cat, Larry

What an minor Wikipedia incident can teach us about the role of authority in the creation of truth

In 2017, Wikipedia editor WikiDan61 changed the flag on Vatican City as it appears on the site, noting that “[all] images of actual Vatican City flags show the “gold” in the keys and tiara rendered in the same hue as the gold/yellow band of the flag, as well as a red opening at the bottom of the tiara”.  However, according to the 2000 revision of the Fundamental Law of Vatican City State, this version of the flag was incorrect.

Truth, authority and the flag of Vatican City

*Header image by Sydney Richardson.*

On June 5, head of Research Integrity and Resolutions at Springer Nature
[Tim Kersjes](https://twitter.com/TimKersjes) presented "Requiem for the
Retraction: why proposals for 'honest retractions' fail in their
objective to promote and encourage the self-correction of science" at
the 2024 World Conference on Research Integrity (WCRI).

Included was the following slide, later shared by [Maria
Zalm](https://x.com/MariaZalm/status/1798304619288047661), senior editor
and team manager of Publication Ethics at PLOS:

<figure class="wp-block-image size-large">
<img
src="https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/cropped.jpg?w=1024"
class="wp-image-269" data-attachment-id="269"
data-permalink="https://reeserichardson.blog/2024/06/18/how-shameful-should-retraction-be/cropped/"
data-orig-file="https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/cropped.jpg"
data-orig-size="1955,1100" data-comments-opened="1" data-image-meta="{"
aperture":"0","credit":"","camera":"","caption":"","created_timestamp":"0","copyright":"","focal_length":"0","iso":"0","shutter_speed":"0","title":"","orientation":"0"}"=""
data-image-title="cropped" data-image-description=""
data-image-caption=""
data-medium-file="https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/cropped.jpg?w=300"
data-large-file="https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/cropped.jpg?w=1024"
tabindex="0" role="button" loading="lazy" width="1024" height="576" />
<figcaption>Slide from Tim Kersjes’ talk at WCRI
2024.</figcaption>
</figure>

> More retraction positivity, less retraction shaming
>
> More and more and more and more
>
> **You want science to be more self-correcting? Stop retraction
> shaming!**
>
> Retractions are normal part of academic publishing and that is **[a
> good thing]{.underline}**
>
> Emphasize that retractions are a signal that editors and publishers
> **[are taking their responsibility]{.underline}**
>
> **[Be careful to jump to conclusions]{.underline}** when you see that
> an article is retracted
>
> Encourage editors to consider that retractions are **[a great
> way]{.underline}** to correct the published record
>
> More importantly: emphasize to authors that they are **[not being
> punished]{.underline}**

Reactions followed. Pseudonymous sleuth
[Morty](https://twitter.com/mortenoxe/status/1798771972555366889) said:

> If this is the final conclusion from \#WCRI2024, so help us God. Most
> of the retractions is due to research misconduct. We need more shaming
> of scientists who commit research misconduct!

Reproducibility researcher and science writer [James
Heathers](https://twitter.com/jamesheathers/status/1801764730031284493)
said:

> I was just thinking about 'stop retraction-shaming' today. While
> reading a 15 month old email thread pleading with an editor to retract
> clearly falsified medical papers.

Sleuth and founder of the 5GH Foundation [WU
Guangheng](https://twitter.com/Dr_5GH/status/1798410890125213868) said:

> We do NOT agree. Honest errors have a very small number, but hundreds
> of thousands of misconduct cases are waiting publishers to handle.
> Both PLoS and Springer Nature should take more effort to "clean up"
> their history, and \[quickly respond\] to new cases.

Maria Zalm
[responded](https://x.com/MariaZalm/status/1798830107425157549):

> To clarify, \[Tim Kersjes\] and I are not suggesting that fraudulent
> research should not be retracted, but rather that unreliable articles
> should be retracted REGARDLESS of misconduct findings.
>
> ...
>
> \[If\] we are truly serious about correcting the scientific
> literature, we need to encourage people to retract their own
> erroneous/unrepeatable results, and this won't happen as long as there
> is such a huge \[stigma\] around all retractions.

Other have written at length about the stigma surrounding retractions:

1. [Ending the retraction stigma: Encouraging the reporting of errors
 in the biomedical record](https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016118802970)
2. [Breaking the stigma of
 retraction](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01266-7)
3. [Retraction Stigma and its Communication via Retraction
 Notices](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-022-09465-w)

In my own research and in discussions with others, I have encountered
compelling arguments both for why retraction should be more stigmatized
and why retraction should be less stigmatized. I have yet to form a
coherent opinion myself. Here, I wanted to collect and discuss these
arguments to aid my own understanding and invite arguments from others.

We should first frame this debate in terms of a common value: the
essentiality of retractions. Most observers will agree that retractions
are an indispensable part of the scientific process and that it is a
good thing when an unreliable paper is retracted. Most observers will
agree that even though retraction is becoming [increasingly
frequent](https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03974-8), not enough papers
are retracted and retractions often take far too long. One might argue
that retraction is not an essential part of science publishing (see
["Science is a strong-link
problem"](https://www.experimental-history.com/p/science-is-a-strong-link-problem)
by psychologist Adam Mastroianni), but we need to stick to one framework
by which we can judge our arguments. Thus, we should prefer a position
that improves the efficiency and integrity of retraction as a research
publishing practice.

### Position A: Retractions should be more stigmatized {#position-a-retractions-should-be-more-stigmatized .wp-block-heading}

###### Contention A1: Most retractions are due to misconduct and misconduct should be shameful {#contention-a1-most-retractions-are-due-to-misconduct-and-misconduct-should-be-shameful .wp-block-heading}

Observers agree that most retractions are the result of research
misconduct on the part of one or more authors ([Fang et
al.](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212247109), [Freijedo-Farinas et
al.](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-04992-7), [Grieneisen and
Zhang](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0044118)). Many retractions
are now the result of particularly egregious forms of misconduct like
paper milling or other systematic research fraud. Research misconduct
should not be tolerated. As such, instances of misconduct should be met
with scorn for the sake of punitive and preventive justice.

There is some evidence that retraction shaming, as an attitudinal
implementation of preventive justice, would work as a deterrent against
research misconduct. [Chen et
al.](https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05277-6) report that lower
perceived consequences were positively associated with self-reporting of
research misconduct in a large sample of Chinese physicians. [Martinson
et al.](https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2006.1.1.51) suggest that
scientists' perceptions of organizational injustice may also contribute
to misconduct.

###### Contention A2: Shameless repeat offenders will continue their careers {#contention-a2-shameless-repeat-offenders-will-continue-their-careers .wp-block-heading}

Researchers that have published retracted work can and do lose their
jobs and access to funding, even without official findings of misconduct
from their employers. However, if employers are not diligent in their
background checks or simply do not care, the most ignominious offenders
might be able to keep their jobs or move onto new ones and continue
recklessly polluting the scientific record. I surmise that researchers
that are comfortable violating ethical norms of scientific conduct would
also be more likely to violate professional and personal ethical norms.

Shame should be used to prevent these individuals from continuing to
climb the ranks for protection of the scientific record and possibly the
protection of violators' colleagues, students and patients. An official
finding of misconduct will most likely not appear in a Google search of
a quack doctor's name. A tweet will.

###### Contention A3: Shame is all we have {#contention-a3-shame-is-all-we-have .wp-block-heading}

Retractions happen very infrequently; there were about 10,000 published
retractions to about 10,000,000 published peer-reviewed articles in 2023
(a 1:1,000 ratio). Many retracted articles are not prominently labelled
as retracted by the publisher [despite COPE
guidelines](https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4). Lots of retracted
articles will continue to be cited as if they were not retracted (see
[Hsiao and Schneider](https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00155)). Moreover,
retracted articles are still counted towards bibliometrics like h-index
and citation count in most databases. Beyond retraction, individual
sanctions are exceedingly infrequent. For instance, the [US Department
of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity
sanctions](https://ori.hhs.gov/content/case_summary) on the order of 10
individuals every year, often fewer. University investigations often
close without official misconduct findings even as retractions mount.

If these formal measures are woefully insufficient for addressing
research misconduct, we should practice shame as a low-cost and scalable
alternative.

### Position B: Retractions should be less stigmatized {#position-b-retractions-should-be-less-stigmatized .wp-block-heading}

###### Contention B1: Retraction stigma could prevent self-reported retractions {#contention-b1-retraction-stigma-could-prevent-self-reported-retractions .wp-block-heading}

In most cases, authors will be those that most completely understand the
content of their scientific work. Thus, authors are among the
best-prepared to spot errors in their work and move to correct or
retract. A heavy stigma and career penalty associated with retractions,
real or perceived, could discourage authors from retracting their own
work. This might explain why so few retractions are associated with
honest error, as mentioned in Contention A1.

In 2020, Chemistry Nobel laureate Frances Arnold retracted a [2019
*Science* article](https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw9068) she
authored,
[noting](https://retractionwatch.com/2020/01/02/nobel-winner-retracts-paper-from-science/):

> For my first work-related tweet of 2020, I am totally bummed to
> announce that we have retracted last year's paper on enzymatic
> synthesis of beta-lactams. The work has not been reproducible.
>
> It is painful to admit, but important to do so. I apologize to all. I
> was a bit busy when this was submitted, and did not do my job well.

Many commentators (rightfully, in my opinion) celebrated Arnold's
transparency and proactiveness. Early-career researchers without a Nobel
prize or a well-earned reputation might be more reluctant to follow this
path exactly because of the perceived personal cost.

###### Contention B2: Retraction stigma impedes the retraction process {#contention-b2-retraction-stigma-impedes-the-retraction-process .wp-block-heading}

Authors will often mount vicious defenses against criticisms and
investigations of their work that could end in retraction. The
perception that a retraction will bring public and personal shame will
undoubtedly fuel this behavior. The threat of shame can prompt authors
to launch lawsuits, spout vitriol or not cooperate with investigations
by journals and employers, tying up proceedings and delaying retractions
for years. James Heathers is not alone in his 15-month quest to get a
paper retracted---experienced sleuths will have endured innumerable
prolonged matches of back-and-forth with editors and authors. Fear of
getting tangled up in these matches will also discourage observers from
reporting errors in the first place.

Editors will be similarly disincentivized against initiating
investigations and executing retractions by the perception of shame. No
editor would want the name of their journal besmirched by calling
attention to a problematic paper with a retraction. Similarly, editors
will want to maintain professional relationships with prestigious
researchers. This is hard to do if the editor is perceived as an agent
of a humiliating witch hunt.

###### Contention B3: Shame can be misdirected {#contention-b3-shame-can-be-misdirected .wp-block-heading}

Retraction notices rarely assign blame for mistakes or misconduct. Many
retraction notices are cartoonishly opaque (e.g. ["\[the\] article...has
been voluntarily retracted by the authors due to a 'non-scientific
reason'"](https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.201700932RRRET)). As a result, it
is very difficult for readers to properly evaluate where shame should be
directed or if it should be employed at all. Obscurant practices by
institutional committees charged with investigating misconduct compound
this difficulty. In this fog, there is always a strong possibility that
the innocent will be targeted for shaming and the guilty will escape
ire.

Junior researchers are already the most likely to shoulder the brunt of
retraction's consequences. [Jin et
al.](https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00780) found that citation losses to
prior works by an author following a retraction of their work are far
less severe for eminent authors. The citation penalty on prior work
(previously described [by the same
team](https://doi.org/10.1038/srep03146)) also implies that other,
unimpeachable work by a group of authors will earn fewer citations
following the retraction of one of their otherwise unrelated articles.
In essence, shame might cause us to disregard valuable work.

How much collateral damage should the scientific community tolerate in
the name of punishing misdeeds?

###### Contention B4: There is not enough shame to go around {#contention-b4-there-is-not-enough-shame-to-go-around .wp-block-heading}

Attention spans are limited. Cultural memory can be short. Even the most
tireless cranks must eventually stop ringing the alarm. There are
undoubtedly tens of thousands of scientific fraudsters out there who
deserve to lose face and never will simply because shame is
rate-limited.

In our cultural context, this also means that the most shame will be
reserved for the most scandalous cases. Hence, headlines will abound for
one [AI-generated rat
penis](https://youtu.be/Bj8IAoTnyNw?si=dViOmf0ZYMm-eGuV) but a case of
[more than 50 medical studies with faked
authorship](https://retractionwatch.com/2024/01/26/journal-retracts-more-than-50-studies-from-saudi-arabia-for-faked-authorship/)
will get comparatively little attention. If we aim the weapon of shame
selectively and illogically, we should hesitate to wield it.

### Position C: We are asking the wrong question {#position-c-we-are-asking-the-wrong-question .wp-block-heading}

The more practically-minded among us will note that we are debating
attitudinal solutions to what is clearly a structural problem.

Not only do these solutions have duller teeth than sweeping systemic
changes, but no one has the authority to force a cultural change in how
something is stigmatized. As retractions become more frequent, it is
also difficult to predict how that stigma might change on its own. We
should direct our effort towards reshaping scientific institutions for
organizational justice instead of litigating how scientists should feel
about science integrity measures.

### What are your thoughts? {#what-are-your-thoughts .wp-block-heading}

Feel free to share your thoughts and arguments for or against retraction
shaming in the comments on this post. As retractions grow exponentially,
discussions like these will shape the future of scientific publishing
and may alter the character of 'self-correction' as a scientific maxim.