Stories around these mass retractions, but also around those of individual cases, can be sensationalist: the allure of a tale of a PI gone rogue, fabricating data at his kitchen table or misappropriating research funds to buy yachts and sports cars is hard to resist. Where there is smoke, there is surely fire.

the allure of a tale of a PI gone rogue, fabricating data at his kitchen table or misappropriating research funds to buy yachts and sports cars is hard to resist.

As a result, retractions have become conflated with misconduct. This is a problem. It makes authors hesitant to voluntarily retract their own articles. Science is supposed to be self-correcting, but authors fear the stigma that comes with having a retraction to their name. As part of a research integrity team at a major publisher, I’ve seen all the excuses: authors who would rather publish a correction the same length of the original article than to retract; authors who claim that the retraction is unfair because they didn’t commit misconduct… Or maybe one of the co-authors did, but surely they shouldn’t suffer the consequences. We see a lot of emotional pleas, which can be gut-wrenching: we are destroying their career and their livelihood by retracting their article. And last, but surely not least: authors lawyer up, threatening legal action to stop the retraction from happening.

Science is supposed to be self-correcting, but authors fear the stigma that comes with having a retraction to their name.

There have been several proposals over the years along the lines arguing that we should have different types of retractions, one for honest errors, and another for actual misconduct. If authors can freely and without stigma retract for honest errors, science would be more self-correcting. Noted meta-researcher Daniele Fanelli suggested something similar back in 2016, and since then there have been multiple proposals to introduce different types of retractions, aimed at improving self-correction in science. Some authors suggested introducing three types, others, including Fanelli, went as far as coming up with five.

These are all well-intentioned proposals, but they are counterproductive. Distinguishing between honest retractions and retractions for actual misconduct will only increase the retraction stigma. It also places an undue burden on editors that would be impossible to fulfil. A retraction is an editorial decision. If we ask editors not only to focus on the reliability of the article, but also to pass judgment on authors’ conduct or misconduct, it would put them in a position where making the decision to retract would become harder. Editors rarely have sufficient information to confidently say that misconduct has taken place and to whom that misconduct could be attributed.

It will also put editors at risk: having to determine whether actual misconduct has taken place and then to publicly announce this in a retraction notice will likely lead to increased legal (and I would argue potentially physical) threats from authors against editors and publishers. I’m convinced that this would ultimately have a chilling effect, making editors more hesitant to retract. But more importantly, I’m convinced that we should not be asking this of editors at all.

Editors rarely have sufficient information to confidently say that misconduct has taken place and to whom that misconduct could be attributed.

Retractions are designed to be a neutral tool to correct the literature. Editorial decisions to retract articles should be based on the reliability of the research, and whether an editor still has confidence in the soundness of the science. Whether this loss of confidence is the result of suspected misconduct or an honest mistake, is ultimately irrelevant. Retractions should not be punitive, only corrective, and we should emphasize this.

It’s fair to say that to improve the reliability of the published record, more articles need to be retracted. In order to encourage all stakeholders (authors, editors and publishers) to do this, we need to foster an environment in which retractions are considered a corrective. Retractions should be a normal part of academic publishing and mean that editors and publishers are taking their responsibilities seriously. To do that we should stop ‘retraction shaming’: we need to emphasize to authors that a retraction of their article is not a form of punishment. Finally, we should encourage editors to consider that retractions are a force for good – a powerful and appropriate tool to correct the published record.

Retractions should be seen as what they are: corrections to the literature. It’s not fair on editors or honest authors to keep stigmatizing retractions. Don’t get me wrong: actual misconduct should be investigated and acted on, but it’s not up to a journal editor to punish an author. Institutions need to take their responsibility and investigate the alleged misconduct of their employees, while an editor’s responsibility lies with preserving the integrity of the published record.

The article was originally published in : No shame, no blame – How to make retractions work | Impact of Social Sciences (lse.ac.uk)

About the author

Tim Kersjes

Tim Kersjes is the Head of Research Integrity, Resolutions at the Springer Nature Research Integrity Group. This team support in-house editors and Editors-in-Chief in handling and resolving all types of research integrity and publication ethics issues. The cases vary from plagiarism and authorship disputes to peer review manipulation, medical-ethical concerns, data fabrication and image manipulation in submitted manuscripts and published articles. He has advised on nearly 2000 cases small and large, and has written hundreds of retraction notices. He is also a trustee at the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

The post No shame, no blame – How to make retractions work by Tim Kersjes appeared first on newsmantra.in l Latest news on Politics, World, Bollywood, Sports, Delhi, Jammu & Kashmir, Trending news | News Mantra.

Prashant Bhushan, photographed holding up a Re 1 coin, announced at a press conference: “I propose to submit to the order and respectfully pay the fine.”

He said he had always believed the Supreme Court is the “last bastion of hope for the weak and oppressed” and that he never intended to hurt the judiciary, but wanted to express his anguish on a “deviation from its record”.

We hope it was the first and the last occasion that judges have gone to the press, and God gives wisdom to protect its dignity by an internal mechanism. Particularly when allegations made, if any, publicly cannot be met by sufferer judges,” the Supreme Court said.

Soon after the ruling, Mr Bhushan had tweeted: “My lawyer and senior colleague Rajiv Dhavan contributed 1 Re immediately after the contempt judgement today which I gratefully accepted.” He also said it was “heartening to see this case has become a watershed moment for freedom of speech”

The Supreme Court, which had asked for an unconditional apology from the lawyer, noted, “We gave several opportunities and encouragement to (Prashant Bhushan) to express regret. He not only gave wide publicity to the second statement but also gave various interviews to press.”

The court was apparently referring to Prashant Bhushan’s statement refusing to retract his comments or apologise, saying he considered it the discharge of his “highest duty” and apologising would be contempt of his conscience and the court. Mr Bhushan had also said that open criticism was necessary to “safeguard the democracy and its values.”

The statement “was to influence independent Judicial function,” the Supreme Court said, adding that while freedom of expression was important, rights of others should also be respected.
The court also referred to the unprecedented press conference by four Supreme Court judges on January 12, 2018, which Mr Bhushan had cited to argue that even judges had gone public with their criticism of the court.

The post Prashant Bhushan paid 1 rupee fine appeared first on newsmantra.in l Latest news on Politics, World, Bollywood, Sports, Delhi, Jammu & Kashmir, Trending news | News Mantra.

Philanthropist Prem Dariyani honoured for his dedication towards INDIAN ARMY

Prem Dariyani donated six acres of land for Army Low College

Supreme Court Justice Bhushan Gavai has advised the lawyers that they should not consider their work as just a business but it is a social responsibility. Lawyers should never forget their social responsibility.

Justice Gavai’s remarks can also be seen in the context of the recent controversy of lawyers in Delhi. Justice Gavai, while launching the IPL Cricket League of Lawyers on behalf of Vasantdada Pratishtha Law College and Western India Advocate Association in Mumbai said that the lawyers must also understand their social responsibility. He also said that the lawyers contributed to the freedom struggle movement and even today many big lawyers are working in the political social field. Similarly, new students should also feel social responsibility. In the lawyers’ IPL, 82 teams from West India are participating.

On this occasion, Justice Gavai also honoured Prem Daryani, trustee of Radha Kalindas Dariyani Charitable Trust. For showing gratitude towards the soldiers of the country, Prem Dariyani has dedicated six acres of land near the Puna to the Indian Army where the Army La College has been built.

Accepting honour Prem Daryani said, “The army sacrifice for the country and our soldiers serve the country day and night. They do not even care about their life while protecting us and society. We also have a duty towards the soldiers of our country and in honour of them; Army Law Colleges have been started. All the people of the society should together fulfil their duty towards the soldiers of our country ”.

Justice Bhushan Gavai said, “This work of Prem Dariyani is a beautiful message for the society, we should play our responsibility and contribute towards the society”.

The judges of Mumbai High Court Justice Ranjit Kamble, Justice Ranjit More, Justice SK Shinde, Justice Sarang Kotwal. Justices MS Karnik and Delhi Lokpal Commission member Justice Dilip Bhosle were present in this function.

The post LAWYERS SHOULD KNOW THERE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY appeared first on newsmantra.in l Latest news on Politics, World, Bollywood, Sports, Delhi, Jammu & Kashmir, Trending news | News Mantra.