The need to defıne the names of edıtors ın retractıon notıces: a case study of 18 retractıon notıces

A retraction notice (RN), at least according to COPE guidance, is meant to be a document that represents transparency. With transparency comes accountability of the agents that are named in the RN. Despite this, while it is not uncommon to see authors’ names listed in RNs, names of editors who are r...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: South Kazakhstan Medical Academy 2025-06-01
Series:Central Asian Journal of Medical Hypotheses and Ethics
Subjects:
Online Access:https://cajmhe.com/index.php/journal/article/view/466
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849423410714640384
author Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
author_facet Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
author_sort Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
collection DOAJ
description A retraction notice (RN), at least according to COPE guidance, is meant to be a document that represents transparency. With transparency comes accountability of the agents that are named in the RN. Despite this, while it is not uncommon to see authors’ names listed in RNs, names of editors who are responsible for the editorial decision of retraction may be absent. Their identification is important because editors supposedly oversee the RN’s wording and explicitly approve the issuance and publication of RNs. To gain an initial measure of the presence or absence of editors’ names in RNs, 18 RNs issued by COPE member journals were identified in PubPeer in July and August 2024. The RNs were obtained from the source (i.e., journals’ websites) and examined, noting whether the names of editors are named in RNs, or not. The agreement or disagreement of authors with the retractions and/or the RNs was also noted. Of the 18 RNs examined, all of those from Wiley journals indicated the editors’ name, whereas most other COPE member journals’ RNs did not. Authors’ agreement or disagreement was not indicated in one third of the RNs. The editor responsible for a RN might be the same or different to that when the paper was originally published, so both (where applicable) should be named in the RN. This article posits that the absence of an editor’s name in the RN is problematic from the stand-point of transparency and accountability. A larger and more systematic analysis of a larger body of RNs is warranted.
format Article
id doaj-art-4974c2b49b624834811bb0e8f27149bb
institution Kabale University
issn 2708-9800
language English
publishDate 2025-06-01
publisher South Kazakhstan Medical Academy
record_format Article
series Central Asian Journal of Medical Hypotheses and Ethics
spelling doaj-art-4974c2b49b624834811bb0e8f27149bb2025-08-20T03:30:36ZengSouth Kazakhstan Medical AcademyCentral Asian Journal of Medical Hypotheses and Ethics2708-98002025-06-016216517010.47316/cajmhe.2025.6.2.10466The need to defıne the names of edıtors ın retractıon notıces: a case study of 18 retractıon notıcesJaime A. Teixeira da Silva0Independent researcher, Ikenobe 3011-2, Kagawa-ken, 761-0799, JapanA retraction notice (RN), at least according to COPE guidance, is meant to be a document that represents transparency. With transparency comes accountability of the agents that are named in the RN. Despite this, while it is not uncommon to see authors’ names listed in RNs, names of editors who are responsible for the editorial decision of retraction may be absent. Their identification is important because editors supposedly oversee the RN’s wording and explicitly approve the issuance and publication of RNs. To gain an initial measure of the presence or absence of editors’ names in RNs, 18 RNs issued by COPE member journals were identified in PubPeer in July and August 2024. The RNs were obtained from the source (i.e., journals’ websites) and examined, noting whether the names of editors are named in RNs, or not. The agreement or disagreement of authors with the retractions and/or the RNs was also noted. Of the 18 RNs examined, all of those from Wiley journals indicated the editors’ name, whereas most other COPE member journals’ RNs did not. Authors’ agreement or disagreement was not indicated in one third of the RNs. The editor responsible for a RN might be the same or different to that when the paper was originally published, so both (where applicable) should be named in the RN. This article posits that the absence of an editor’s name in the RN is problematic from the stand-point of transparency and accountability. A larger and more systematic analysis of a larger body of RNs is warranted.https://cajmhe.com/index.php/journal/article/view/466accountabilitybiomedicineresearch ethicsretractiontransparency
spellingShingle Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
The need to defıne the names of edıtors ın retractıon notıces: a case study of 18 retractıon notıces
Central Asian Journal of Medical Hypotheses and Ethics
accountability
biomedicine
research ethics
retraction
transparency
title The need to defıne the names of edıtors ın retractıon notıces: a case study of 18 retractıon notıces
title_full The need to defıne the names of edıtors ın retractıon notıces: a case study of 18 retractıon notıces
title_fullStr The need to defıne the names of edıtors ın retractıon notıces: a case study of 18 retractıon notıces
title_full_unstemmed The need to defıne the names of edıtors ın retractıon notıces: a case study of 18 retractıon notıces
title_short The need to defıne the names of edıtors ın retractıon notıces: a case study of 18 retractıon notıces
title_sort need to define the names of editors in retraction notices a case study of 18 retraction notices
topic accountability
biomedicine
research ethics
retraction
transparency
url https://cajmhe.com/index.php/journal/article/view/466
work_keys_str_mv AT jaimeateixeiradasilva theneedtodefınethenamesofedıtorsınretractıonnotıcesacasestudyof18retractıonnotıces
AT jaimeateixeiradasilva needtodefınethenamesofedıtorsınretractıonnotıcesacasestudyof18retractıonnotıces