GUIDELINES: REtRactIoN GUIDELINES publicationethics.org https://publicationethics.org https://publicationethics.org 2 Version 2: November 2019 1 These guidelines are intended to apply primarily to...

1 answer below »

GUIDELINES:
REtRactIoN GUIDELINES
publicationethics.org
https:
publicationethics.org
https:
publicationethics.org
2
Version 2: November 2019
1 These guidelines are intended to apply primarily to journal articles but may be applicable to book chapters, abstracts, preprints, and other
published documents.
Cite this as: CoPe Council. CoPe retraction guidelines — english.
https:
doi.org/ XXXXXXXXXX/cope XXXXXXXXXX
©2019 Committee on Publication ethics (CC BY-nC-nD 4.0)
Version 2: November 2019.
REtRactIoN GUIDELINES
CoPe retraction Guidelines are formal CoPe policy and are intended to advise editors and publishers on
expected practices when considering whether a retraction is appropriate, and how to issue a retraction.
summary
editors should consider retracting a publication1 if:
• They have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of major e
or (eg, miscalculation
or experimental e
or), or as a result of fa
ication (eg, of data) or falsification (eg, image manipulation)
• It constitutes plagiarism
• The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper attribution to previous sources
or disclosure to the editor, permission to republish, or justification (ie, cases of redundant publication)
• It contains material or data without authorisation for use
• Copyright has been infringed or there is some other serious legal issue (eg, libel, privacy)
• It reports unethical research
• It has been published solely on the basis of a compromised or manipulated peer review process
• The author(s) failed to disclose a major competing interest (aka, conflict of interest) that, in the view
of the editor, would have unduly affected interpretations of the work or recommendations by editors
and peer reviewers.
notices of retraction should:
• Be linked to the retracted article wherever possible (ie, in all online versions)
• Clearly identify the retracted article (eg, by including the title and authors in the retraction heading
or citing the retracted article)
• Be clearly identified as a retraction (ie, distinct from other types of co
ection or comment)
• Be published promptly to minimise harmful effects
• Be freely available to all readers (ie, not behind access ba
iers or available only to subscribers)
• State who is retracting the article
• State the reason(s) for retraction
• Be objective, factual, and avoid inflammatory language.
https:
publicationethics.org
https:
publicationethics.org
https:
doi.org/ XXXXXXXXXX/cope XXXXXXXXXX
https:
creativecommons.org/licenses
y-nc-nd/4.0
https:
publicationethics.org
https:
publicationethics.org
3
etractions are not usually appropriate if:
• The authorship is disputed but there is no reason to doubt the validity of the findings
• The main findings of the work are still reliable and co
ection could sufficiently address e
ors or concerns
• An editor has inconclusive evidence to support retraction, or is awaiting additional information
such as from an institutional investigation (for information about expressions of concern see
(https:
cope.onl/forum-concern))
• Author conflicts of interest have been reported to the journal after publication, but in the editor’s view these
are not likely to have influenced interpretations or recommendations, or the conclusions of the article.
tHE PURPoSE oF REtRactIoN
Retraction is a mechanism for co
ecting the literature and alerting readers to articles that contain such
seriously flawed or e
oneous content or data that their findings and conclusions cannot be relied upon.
Unreliable content or data may result from honest e
or, naïve mistakes, or research misconduct.
The main purpose of retraction is to co
ect the literature and ensure its integrity rather than to punish
the authors.
Retractions may be used to alert readers to cases of redundant publication, plagiarism, peer review
manipulation, reuse of material or data without authorisation, copyright infringement or some other
legal issue (eg, libel, privacy, illegality), unethical research, and/or a failure to disclose a major
competing interest that would have unduly influenced interpretations or recommendations.
WHIcH PUBLIcatIoNS SHoULD BE REtRactED?
If only a small part of an article reports flawed data or content, this may be best rectified by a co
ection.
Partial retractions are not helpful because they make it difficult to determine the status of the article and
which parts may be relied upon. Similarly, if only a small section of an article (eg, a few sentences in the
discussion) is plagiarised, editors should consider a co
ection (which could note that text was used without
appropriate acknowledgement and cite the source) rather than retracting the entire article, which may
contain sound, original data.
If redundant publication occurs, the journal that published first may issue a notice of redundant publication
ut should not retract the article unless there are other concerns, such as the reliability of the data. Any
journals that subsequently publish a redundant article should retract it and state the reason for the retraction.
If an article is published in more than one journal (either online or in print) around the same time, precedence
may be determined by the publication dates or the dates on which a licence to publish or copyright transfer
agreement was signed by the authors.
Cite this as: CoPe Council. CoPe retraction guidelines — english.
https:
doi.org/ XXXXXXXXXX/cope XXXXXXXXXX
©2019 Committee on Publication ethics (CC BY-nC-nD 4.0)
Version 2: November 2019.
https:
publicationethics.org
https:
publicationethics.org
https:
cope.onl/forum-concern
https:
doi.org/ XXXXXXXXXX/cope XXXXXXXXXX
https:
creativecommons.org/licenses
y-nc-nd/4.0
https:
publicationethics.org
https:
publicationethics.org
4
Journals that publish an article that synthesises or aggregates data from redundant publications may
consider issuing a co
ection; duplicate counting of the same data can cause meta-analyses and systematic
eviews to overestimate effect sizes and benefits of interventions.
In cases of partial overlap (ie, when authors present new findings in an article that contains a substantial
amount of previously published information) editors should consider whether the entire article is retracted
or whether to issue a co
ection clarifying which aspects had been published previously and providing
appropriate attribution to the earlier work. This will depend on the amount and nature of overlap –
in some cases (eg, description of a standard method), a limited degree of Text recycling
(https:
cope.onl/text-recycle) may be permissible.
Guidelines on dealing with redundant publications identified in submitted manuscripts or published articles
can be found in the relevant CoPe Flowcharts (https:
cope.onl/flowcharts-1).
Posting an ‘in press’ or final version of an article online usually constitutes publication even if the article
has not appeared (or will not appear) in print. If an article is retracted before it appears in the print or online
version of a journal, or if the journal does not publish in print, the online version of the article should be
etained with a clear notice of retraction and it should be included in bibliographic databases (eg, with a
digital object identifier (DOI) or other permanent citation). Retaining the original work ensures transparency
of the published record, as online versions may have been accessed and cited by researchers prior
to retraction.
Articles that relied on subsequently retracted articles in reaching their own conclusions, such as systematic
eviews or meta-analyses, may themselves need to be co
ected or retracted.
Retractions may be requested by an article’s author(s), by an institution, by readers, or by the editor.
WHat FoRM SHoULD a REtRactIoN taKE?
In general, a retraction notice should cover a single retracted article.
Retraction notices should mention the reasons and basis for the retraction to enable readers to understand
why the article is unreliable and should also specify who is retracting the article and possibly how the
matter came to the journal’s attention (claimants may be named only when they have given permission).
Whenever possible, editors should negotiate with authors and attempt to agree on a form of wording that is
clear and informative to readers and acceptable to all parties. However, prolonged negotiations should not
unreasonably delay retraction and editors should publish retractions even if consensus cannot be reached.
Retraction notices should be published in all versions of the journal (ie, print and/or online). It is helpful to
include the authors and title of the retracted article in the retraction heading. A form from the european
Association of science editors for checking details of the retraction is available at (http:
.link/ease) .
Cite this as: CoPe Council. CoPe retraction guidelines — english.
https:
doi.org/ XXXXXXXXXX/cope XXXXXXXXXX
©2019 Committee on Publication ethics (CC BY-nC-nD 4.0)
Version 2: November 2019.
https:
publicationethics.org
https:
publicationethics.org
https:
cope.onl/text-recycle
https:
cope.onl/flowcharts-1
http:
.link/ease
https:
doi.org/ XXXXXXXXXX/cope XXXXXXXXXX
https:
creativecommons.org/licenses
y-nc-nd/4.0
https:
publicationethics.org
https:
publicationethics.org
5
Retracted articles should be unmistakably identified as such in all online sources (eg, on the journal website,
on the original article, and any bibliographic databases). Journals are responsible for ensuring that retractions
are labelled in such a way that they are identified by bibliographic databases and should also include a link to
the retracted article. The retraction should appear on all online searches for the retracted publication.
In extremely limited cases it may be necessary to remove an article from online publication, such as when
the article is clearly defamatory, violates personal privacy, is the subject of a court order, or might pose a
serious health risk to the general public. In these circumstances, the metadata (title and authors) should
e retained and the retraction notice should clearly state why the full article has been removed.
WHo SHoULD ISSUE tHE REtRactIoN?
In some cases, retractions are issued jointly or on behalf of the journal’s owner (eg, a learned society or
publisher). However, since responsibility for the journal’s content rests with the editor, they should always
have the final decision about retracting material. Editors may retract publications (or issue expressions
of concern) even if all or some of the authors do not agree. Who is retracting the article should be clearly
identified within the retraction notice.
HoW qUIcKLy SHoULD aN aRtIcLE BE REtRactED?
Publications should be retracted as soon as possible after the editor is convinced that the publication is
seriously flawed, misleading, or falls into any of the categories described above. Prompt retraction should
minimise the number of researchers who cite the e
oneous work, act on its findings, or draw inco
ect
conclusions, such as from ‘double counting’ redundant publications in meta-analyses or similar instances.
If an editor has convincing evidence that a retraction is required, they should not delay retraction simply
ecause the authors are not cooperative. However, if an allegation of misconduct related to a potential
etraction results in a disciplinary hearing or institutional investigation, it may be appropriate to wait for
the outcome before issuing a retraction (but an expression of concern may be published in the interim).
If a letter or commentary that has been submitted for publication raises serious concerns about an article,
an editor should
Answered Same DayApr 09, 2022

Solution

Ananya answered on Apr 09 2022
10 Votes
Running Head: HEALTHCARE                                1
HEALTHCARE                                        3
HEALTHCARE
Table of Contents
Question 1    3
Question 2    5
References    7
Question 1
    The researchers and research oversight bodies must be very careful about the reproducibility crisis which occurs in the replication of data in research. The replication of data can occur due to several causes such as overlapping of data where the data generated by other researchers are used in parts for several publications, fa
ication of data which includes lying about a data which is not self-generated, falsification of data which manipulates the data and applies it in the research and plagiarism where the data of another person is taken without giving them the credit and
eaking the rules of copyright. The researchers must be very wo
ied about such reproducibility crisis as it leads to the retraction of the research work (COPE Council. COPE Retraction guidelines — English, 2019). According to the COPE council, the retraction of a paper creates a negative impact on the paper and the authors related to it. The future publications are minutely scrutinised once any of the retraction condition is found in the research work. Such retraction occurs when there is no proper evidence of the data produced, there is a dispute in authorisation, one paper is published in several parts, copyright infringement has occu
ed, or the work is highly plagiarised. The article retracted needs to be reworked and the mistakes occu
ed must be co
ected to remove the retraction from the editor’s side (COPE Council. COPE Retraction guidelines — English,2019). A retraction in a work makes the work available to all as they are marked as retracted everywhere in the online sources. This rejects the paper from being able to get any subscription or payment to access. As mentioned by Miyakawa (2020), if there is no raw data, it cannot be considered scientific in research which creates another reproducibility crisis. The huge work of a research becomes not useful and demotivates the researchers which makes them disinterested in their future works. When high amount of replication is found in the data, the paper may also be taken down and rejected by the editor or the author of the source paper may also take the help of the law and amended policies to reject the paper which creates a bigger negative impact on the authors of the research paper.
    The research oversight bodies must be equally wo
ied about the reproducibility crisis of the research data as they are the group of peer reviewers who needs to judge the work ethically. The peer review is a work of ethics which include a group of scholarly reviewers evaluating the integrity of the...
SOLUTION.PDF

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

More Questions »

Submit New Assignment

Copy and Paste Your Assignment Here