nature.com/lw767/magazine-assets/d41586-02423-4/d41586-02423-4_27392462.jpg?as=Webp 767W, https://media.nature.com/lw319/magazine-assets/d41586-02423-4/d41586-02423-4_27392462.jpg?as=webp 319W " sizes = "(Max-Width: 319px) 319px, (Min-Width: 1023px) 100VW, 767PX">

retreat notifications - the explanatory explanations that are published in addition to the papers withdrawn from literature - have become more clearly formulated and easier accessible in some cases, according to a study that has examined hundreds of this information.

The results that were published in Accountability in Research show only modest progress over a period of ten years and are limited to their scope 1 . But the work underlines the need for publishers to agree on more consistent guidelines and to commit themselves to more transparency, say the authors.

"We rely on science and technology to make decisions," says co-author Misha Angrist, a science policy researcher at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. "If one aspect turns out to be wrong, be it due to malicious behavior or an innocent error, we want the withdrawal in the same font size and easily accessible and easy to understand."

guidelines, no rules

Papers can be withdrawn by their authors or publishers for various reasons, including honest mistakes, author disputes or problems that arise from research abuse. Magazines began publishing withdrawals in the 1970s, but there are no binding rules for writing a withdrawal.

In 2009 the Committee on Publication Ethics (Cope), an association of Journal editors and publishers in Eastleigh, UK, volunteer to withdraw, including what should be included in the information. Then in 2015 the media organization Retraction Watch , who followed paper refunds, published Recommendations In addition, which should be included in a declaration of withdrawal. These suggest that the information contains a clear explanation of why a paper has been withdrawn, mention when the magazine was first drawn to possible problems and specify whether other papers are affected.

"It is really important to involve everything that could have happened after publication", including reports on failed attempts to replicate research, and reviews on discussion platforms, says Frédérique Bordignon, which examines the practice of research integrity at the Paris Institute of Technology. Without clear, easily accessible retreats, there is a risk that researchers "rely on something that is no longer reliable," she adds.

To investigate whether the different guidelines have led to improvements, the retraction Watch database used the retraction Watch database to identify 768 retreats from two publishers-Springer (now part of Springer Nature) and Wiley-in 2010, 2015 and 2020. (The news editorial team of Nature is editorially regardless of its publisher.) The researchers developed a valuation system based on the Cope guidelines and the recommendations of retraction watch and evaluated each withdrawal on a scale from zero to two.

The criteria of the evaluation included whether the information was freely available instead of hiding behind a payment barrier and were accessible - that is, linked with the paper. They also took into account whether the information contained important information, how detailed reasons for the withdrawal, the results or status of studies on possible misconduct, details about which specific parts of a paper are invalid, and who initiated the withdrawal.

The analysis showed that the ratings of Springer's withdrawals were improved from 2010 to 2020, for example the score for the accessibility of the information from 1.25 in 2010 to 1.9 in 2020. However, they remained low in some categories, such as the recognition of studies (0.25 in 2020). Wiley's retreats did not improve over time and achieved lower scores in some categories in 2020, including the disclosure of the reasons for withdrawals (1.61 in 2020 compared to 1.73 in 2010) and the accessibility of information (1.29 in 2020 compared to 1.63 in 2010).

limited study

The authors clear that their analysis is limited and does not cover any declarations of withdrawal that have been published since 2020. A study of recent withdrawal information could provide a better understanding of how well current guidelines and standards work. The number of withdrawals href = "https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-03974-8" Data-Track = "Click" Data-Label = "https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-03974-8" Data track category = "Body-Text-Link"> A record, with over 10,000 papers withdrawn .

"" It is a pilot study because we have a limited amount of time and range to do this, but I think our work is ripe to be built on it, "says Angrist.

"We have worked to ensure that our retreat notes have a consistent structure in recent years," says Chris Graf, director of research integrity at Springer Nature in London. The current criteria of the publisher for retreats "offer transparency and consistency and are at the same time manageable" and "go beyond the guidelines defined by Cope", he adds. It is not always possible to mention examinations carried out by the institutions of the authors, "either because they were confidential or because they were not done at all," he says. "Most withdrawals we publish are not accompanied by the result or an institutional investigation."

"Wiley supports the call for increased standardization of the retreat process, in addition to the consistent application of existing framework conditions," says Michael Streeter, director of research integrity and ethics of publishing at Wiley, based in Malden, Massachusetts. "A clear labeling of the withdrawn status of an article is essential for readers and researchers. This is a central practice at Wiley."

The study calls on the publishers to agree on criteria for the publication of retreat ads. But "to what extent this on all magazines, all types of magazines, all types of papers ... The difficulty is huge," says Bordignon. "It could be a long way."