Assessing the Online Scientific Community’s Support for Various Reasons for Article Retraction: A Preliminary Survey
A prevailing lay understanding of retraction in the scientific literature is to correct for misconduct and honest errors. Nonetheless, though historically rare, retractions to limit the spread of results deemed socially harmful (i.e., information hazards), have gained increasing traction and become...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | deu |
| Published: |
Adam Mickiewicz University
2023-12-01
|
| Series: | Ethics in Progress |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://pressto.amu.edu.pl/index.php/eip/article/view/40993 |
| _version_ | 1797372791401480192 |
|---|---|
| author | August Namuth Mitch Brown Alicia Macchione Donald Sacco |
| author_facet | August Namuth Mitch Brown Alicia Macchione Donald Sacco |
| author_sort | August Namuth |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description |
A prevailing lay understanding of retraction in the scientific literature is to correct for misconduct and honest errors. Nonetheless, though historically rare, retractions to limit the spread of results deemed socially harmful (i.e., information hazards), have gained increasing traction and become increasingly common. This study sought primarily to determine the extent to which information hazard-based retraction is supported in the scientific community and as a secondary goal whether individual difference variables moderate receptivity. We tasked a diverse sample of researchers across various disciplines who use social media to evaluate scenarios in which a paper was retracted for misconduct, honest errors, and information hazards. Overall, support for retraction on the basis of information hazards was low, suggesting that researchers overwhelmingly support academic freedom as a concept. Nonetheless, left-leaning ideologies predicted slightly greater defensibility of the practice among individuals early in their careers. We provide training suggestions to mitigate reactance toward controversial scientific findings.
|
| first_indexed | 2024-03-08T18:39:56Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-74c5dadedf7f42eab7ff20f075e27a92 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2084-9257 |
| language | deu |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-08T18:39:56Z |
| publishDate | 2023-12-01 |
| publisher | Adam Mickiewicz University |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Ethics in Progress |
| spelling | doaj.art-74c5dadedf7f42eab7ff20f075e27a922023-12-29T07:59:31ZdeuAdam Mickiewicz UniversityEthics in Progress2084-92572023-12-0114210.14746/eip.2023.2.4Assessing the Online Scientific Community’s Support for Various Reasons for Article Retraction: A Preliminary SurveyAugust Namuth0https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6433-2704Mitch Brown1https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6615-6081Alicia Macchione2https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1409-6408Donald Sacco3https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6017-5070University of Southern MississippiUniversity of ArkansasWest Texas A&M UniversityUniversity of Southern Mississippi A prevailing lay understanding of retraction in the scientific literature is to correct for misconduct and honest errors. Nonetheless, though historically rare, retractions to limit the spread of results deemed socially harmful (i.e., information hazards), have gained increasing traction and become increasingly common. This study sought primarily to determine the extent to which information hazard-based retraction is supported in the scientific community and as a secondary goal whether individual difference variables moderate receptivity. We tasked a diverse sample of researchers across various disciplines who use social media to evaluate scenarios in which a paper was retracted for misconduct, honest errors, and information hazards. Overall, support for retraction on the basis of information hazards was low, suggesting that researchers overwhelmingly support academic freedom as a concept. Nonetheless, left-leaning ideologies predicted slightly greater defensibility of the practice among individuals early in their careers. We provide training suggestions to mitigate reactance toward controversial scientific findings. https://pressto.amu.edu.pl/index.php/eip/article/view/40993Retractionmation hazardpolitical ideologymisconductpublication ethics |
| spellingShingle | August Namuth Mitch Brown Alicia Macchione Donald Sacco Assessing the Online Scientific Community’s Support for Various Reasons for Article Retraction: A Preliminary Survey Ethics in Progress Retraction mation hazard political ideology misconduct publication ethics |
| title | Assessing the Online Scientific Community’s Support for Various Reasons for Article Retraction: A Preliminary Survey |
| title_full | Assessing the Online Scientific Community’s Support for Various Reasons for Article Retraction: A Preliminary Survey |
| title_fullStr | Assessing the Online Scientific Community’s Support for Various Reasons for Article Retraction: A Preliminary Survey |
| title_full_unstemmed | Assessing the Online Scientific Community’s Support for Various Reasons for Article Retraction: A Preliminary Survey |
| title_short | Assessing the Online Scientific Community’s Support for Various Reasons for Article Retraction: A Preliminary Survey |
| title_sort | assessing the online scientific community s support for various reasons for article retraction a preliminary survey |
| topic | Retraction mation hazard political ideology misconduct publication ethics |
| url | https://pressto.amu.edu.pl/index.php/eip/article/view/40993 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT augustnamuth assessingtheonlinescientificcommunityssupportforvariousreasonsforarticleretractionapreliminarysurvey AT mitchbrown assessingtheonlinescientificcommunityssupportforvariousreasonsforarticleretractionapreliminarysurvey AT aliciamacchione assessingtheonlinescientificcommunityssupportforvariousreasonsforarticleretractionapreliminarysurvey AT donaldsacco assessingtheonlinescientificcommunityssupportforvariousreasonsforarticleretractionapreliminarysurvey |