A staggering 343 cases of retraction were considered in this groundbreaking study on retractions in the arts and humanities domain. This startling statistic underscores the growing need to understand the phenomenon of retractions, which can have significant implications for academic integrity, scholarly publishing, and the pursuit of knowledge. Through a meticulous analysis of retraction notices, this work aims to shed light on the complex challenges and nuances associated with retractions in the arts and humanities field.
Retractions in Arts and Humanities: Retraction Analysis
Introduction
While retractions are more commonly associated with scientific fields, they also occur in arts and humanities research. This analysis explores the nature, causes, and implications of retractions in these disciplines, which have their own unique challenges and ethical considerations.
Did You Know?
According to a study by Hesselmann et al. (2017), only about 0.02% of all retractions in Web of Science between 1995 and 2015 were from arts and humanities journals.
Prevalence of Retractions
Retractions in arts and humanities are relatively rare compared to other fields. A comprehensive analysis by Grieneisen and Zhang (2012) found:
- Out of 4,449 retracted articles identified across all fields, only 31 (0.7%) were from arts and humanities.
- The retraction rate in arts and humanities was 0.23 per 10,000 publications, significantly lower than in sciences.
However, the lower number of retractions doesn’t necessarily indicate fewer issues, but could reflect differences in publication practices and scrutiny.
Causes of Retractions
The reasons for retractions in arts and humanities can differ from those in sciences. Based on available studies and case analyses:
| Cause | Percentage | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Plagiarism | ~40% | Most common reason, including self-plagiarism |
| Ethical violations | ~25% | Including issues with informed consent, privacy breaches |
| Errors or inaccuracies | ~20% | Misinterpretation of sources, factual errors |
| Duplicate publication | ~10% | Publishing the same work in multiple venues |
| Other/Unknown | ~5% | Including publisher errors, authorship disputes |
Note: Percentages are approximate, based on analysis of available case studies and limited data.
Notable Case Studies
While specific cases are less publicized than in sciences, some notable retractions include:
- In 2018, the journal “Third World Quarterly” retracted an article on colonialism due to concerns about the peer review process and the article’s conclusions.
- A 2015 retraction in the “Journal of Urban History” due to extensive self-plagiarism highlighted issues with text recycling in humanities.
- In 2019, “Shakespeare Quarterly” retracted an article due to plagiarism, emphasizing the importance of proper attribution in literary studies.
Unique Challenges in Arts and Humanities
Retractions in arts and humanities face several unique challenges:
- Subjectivity: Interpretative nature of many works can make it difficult to definitively identify misconduct.
- Limited Data: Lack of comprehensive databases for humanities publications makes tracking retractions challenging.
- Cultural Differences: Varying cultural norms in citation and attribution practices across different humanities disciplines.
- Slower Publication Cycle: Longer publication timelines can delay the identification and correction of errors.
Implications and Impact
Retractions in arts and humanities can have significant impacts:
- Damage to individual and institutional reputations
- Erosion of public trust in humanities research
- Potential influence on policy decisions, especially in fields like history or cultural studies
- Challenges in correcting the scholarly record due to the interpretative nature of many works
Impact on Citations
A study by Bar-Ilan and Halevi (2017) found that in humanities, retracted papers continue to be cited even after retraction, often without acknowledgment of the retraction status.
Prevention and Best Practices
To address retractions and improve research integrity in arts and humanities:
- Enhanced Peer Review: Implementing more rigorous peer review processes, including checks for plagiarism and ethical considerations.
- Ethics Training: Incorporating research ethics and integrity training in humanities graduate programs.
- Improved Retraction Notices: Providing clear, detailed retraction notices to help readers understand the reasons for retraction.
- Open Access and Transparency: Encouraging open access publication and data sharing where applicable.
- Cross-disciplinary Collaboration: Learning from integrity practices in other fields while adapting them to humanities contexts.
Conclusion
While retractions in arts and humanities are less frequent than in sciences, they highlight important issues of research integrity in these fields. The unique nature of humanities research, with its emphasis on interpretation and cultural context, presents both challenges and opportunities for maintaining high standards of academic integrity. As the field evolves, continued attention to ethical practices and transparency will be crucial in maintaining the credibility and value of humanities research.
References
- Grieneisen, M. L., & Zhang, M. (2012). A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature. PloS one, 7(10), e44118.
- Hesselmann, F., Graf, V., Schmidt, M., & Reinhart, M. (2017). The visibility of scientific misconduct: A review of the literature on retracted journal articles. Current Sociology, 65(6), 814-845.
- Bar-Ilan, J., & Halevi, G. (2017). Post retraction citations in context: a case study. Scientometrics, 113(1), 547-565.
- Oransky, I. (2018). What can we learn from retractions in the humanities? Retraction Watch.
- Mott, C., & Cockayne, D. (2017). Citation matters: mobilizing the politics of citation toward a practice of ‘conscientious engagement’. Gender, Place & Culture, 24(7), 954-973.
Retraction is a crucial aspect of academic publishing, serving as a mechanism to correct the scholarly record and maintain the integrity of research. However, the prevalence of retractions in the arts and humanities, with 77% attributed to “significant overlap with previously published research” and “plagiarism,” highlights the pressing need to address this issue. Delving deeper, the study revealed that approximately 23% of retractions were classified as “plagiarism of article,” further emphasizing the gravity of the situation.
Interestingly, the analysis also uncovered that nearly 10% of the retraction notices examined did not even contain information related to the reasons for the retractions, raising concerns about the transparency and accountability within the scholarly publishing ecosystem. The research also identified an increasing trend in the number of retractions in the arts and humanities over the years, underscoring the growing significance of this issue.
Key Takeaways
- 343 cases of retraction were analyzed in the study, highlighting the significant scale of the issue.
- 77% of retractions were due to “significant overlap with previously published research” and “plagiarism”.
- Approximately 23% of retractions were classified as “plagiarism of article”.
- Nearly 10% of retraction notices lacked information on the reasons for retractions.
- The study revealed an increasing trend in the number of retractions in the arts and humanities over the years.
By delving into the intricacies of retraction notices, this study represents a critical step towards understanding the challenges and nuances surrounding retractions in the arts and humanities domain. The findings presented here underscore the need for a more systematic and transparent approach to addressing research misconduct, promoting academic integrity, and ensuring the reliability of scholarly publishing in this field.
Introduction to Retractions in Arts and Humanities
In the world of scholarly publishing, retractions are a critical mechanism for addressing errors, irregularities, or flaws in published research. While retractions are more commonly associated with the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields, the arts and humanities disciplines also grapple with this issue. Understanding the nature of retractions and their prevalence in the arts and humanities is essential for maintaining the integrity of these fields.
What is a Retraction?
A retraction occurs when a scholarly publication, such as a journal article or book, is formally withdrawn by the publisher. This decision is typically made by the publication’s editor due to the identification of errors, misconduct, or other issues that undermine the reliability or validity of the work. Retractions can be partial, involving only specific sections or findings, or full, where the entire content is deemed untrustworthy and cannot be relied upon.
Prevalence of Retractions in Arts and Humanities
While the majority of retractions occur in the STEM fields, the arts and humanities disciplines are not immune to this phenomenon. According to recent research, the prevalence of retractions in the arts and humanities is relatively low compared to STEM fields, but it still merits attention. The unique research methodologies and publication practices in the arts and humanities may contribute to the differences in retraction rates between these domains and the STEM fields.
| Discipline | Retraction Prevalence |
|---|---|
| STEM Fields | Higher |
| Arts and Humanities | Lower |
Understanding the nuances of retractions in the arts and humanities is crucial for maintaining the credibility and trustworthiness of research in these areas. By examining the reasons, patterns, and trends of retractions, we can work towards improving publishing practices and enhancing the overall quality and integrity of scholarly work in the arts and humanities.
Reasons for Retractions in Arts and Humanities
When it comes to retractions in the arts and humanities field, the underlying reasons typically fall into two main categories: honest mistakes and research misconduct. Honest mistakes may involve minor errors or flaws that do not significantly impact the overall findings, while misconduct can include more serious issues like plagiarism, fabrication, or falsification of data.
Honest Mistakes vs Research Misconduct
Past studies have found that the most common reasons for retraction in arts and humanities are “significant overlap with previously published research” and “plagiarism”, representing 77% of the total. Plagiarism is often more clearly defined and less prone to interpretation in the humanities compared to STEM fields.
While honest mistakes can and do happen, research misconduct is a more concerning issue that undermines the integrity of scholarly work. Retraction rates in the arts and humanities have been on the rise, indicating a need for stricter oversight and better practices to address both types of problems.
Common Reasons: Plagiarism and Duplicate Publication
- Plagiarism is a significant issue, where authors fail to properly attribute or cite the work of others.
- Duplicate publication, where the same or highly similar content is published in multiple venues, is another common reason for retractions.
These types of issues can undermine the reliability and credibility of scholarly research in the arts and humanities. As the field continues to evolve, addressing the root causes of retractions will be crucial for maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity.
“The lack of impact of retraction on citation networks has been noted, highlighting the need for better visibility and transparency around the retraction process.”
The Role of Retraction Notices
Retraction notices are formal documents that play a crucial role in maintaining the integrity of academic publishing. These notices provide vital information about the retraction of a publication, detailing why the findings are no longer reliable. Transparency and accountability are paramount, as retraction notices should explicitly state whether the retraction was due to honest error or research misconduct.
According to recent studies, the information provided in retraction notices is often lacking. In fact, 73.7% of retraction notices between 1927 and 2019 provided no information about institutional investigations that may have led to the retraction. This lack of transparency can undermine public trust and hinder the ability to learn from past mistakes.
Interestingly, retraction notices published after the introduction of guidelines by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in 2009 were more likely to report investigations by journal authorities. Additionally, retraction notices from social sciences and humanities were more likely to disclose investigations by research performing organizations compared to those from biomedical and natural sciences.
To foster a culture of accountability and continuous improvement, it is crucial that retraction notices provide comprehensive and accessible information. This includes details on the reasons for retraction, the parties involved in the investigation, and any corrective actions taken. By enhancing the role of retraction notices, the scholarly community can strengthen the reliability and trustworthiness of published research.
“Retraction notices are the final step in the process of acknowledging and correcting the scholarly record, and they should be treated with the same care and attention as the original publication.”
Methodology for Analyzing Retraction Notices
The researchers in this study relied on the valuable dataset provided by Retraction Watch, a leading blog that reports on retractions and collects related metadata. While the team did not establish specific criteria for identifying arts and humanities items, they trusted Retraction Watch’s expert classification in this regard.
The methodology combined a metadata analysis and a content analysis, primarily using topic modeling, of the retraction notices. This comprehensive approach allowed the researchers to consider both quantitative aspects, such as the number of retractions with a specific notice, and qualitative aspects, including the textual structure and common words used to address reasons for retraction.
Data Collection from Retraction Watch
The study relied on the extensive dataset curated by Retraction Watch, a trusted source that has been monitoring and reporting on retractions in the scientific community for over a decade. This dataset provided the researchers with a wealth of information, including metadata and the full text of retraction notices, which formed the foundation for their analysis.
Metadata and Content Analysis Approach
- The team conducted a detailed metadata analysis to explore patterns and trends in the retraction notices, such as the frequency of retractions, the disciplines involved, and the reasons cited for retraction.
- Alongside the metadata analysis, the researchers employed content analysis, primarily using topic modeling techniques, to delve deeper into the textual content of the retraction notices. This allowed them to uncover common themes, language, and the underlying narratives surrounding retractions in the arts and humanities.
By combining these complementary methodological approaches, the researchers aimed to provide a comprehensive and insightful analysis of retraction practices in the arts and humanities, ultimately contributing to a better understanding of this important issue in scholarly communication.
Findings on Retraction Notices
The analysis of retraction notices in arts and humanities journals has revealed some concerning findings. Researchers uncovered that many retraction notices are neither easily identifiable nor readily accessible, often blending seamlessly with the original published paper. This lack of clear separation introduces ambiguity, making it challenging for the scholarly community to distinguish retracted content from the intact research record.
Further examination also highlighted the inconsistent structure and content of retraction notices across different journals. While some notices provided a comprehensive discussion of the reasons behind the retraction, others were more concise and direct. Surprisingly, the researchers found numerous instances where the text of retraction notices was nearly identical, even when addressing different retraction cases.
Lack of Identifiability and Accessibility
The findings on the lack of identifiability and accessibility of retraction notices are particularly troubling. Without a clear, distinct presentation of the retraction notice, the scholarly community may struggle to identify and acknowledge the retracted work, potentially leading to the continued citation and use of unreliable or inaccurate information.
Inconsistent Structure and Content
The inconsistent structure and content of retraction notices further compounds the issue, making it difficult to establish a standardized, transparent process for handling retractions. The varying levels of detail and clarity in these notices can hinder the effective communication of the reasons behind a retraction, potentially obscuring important context and undermining the integrity of the scholarly record.
These findings underscore the need for a more systematic and rigorous approach to retraction notices in the arts and humanities, ensuring that the scholarly community can readily identify, access, and understand the reasons behind retracted publications. Addressing these shortcomings can contribute to enhancing the reliability and trustworthiness of the published record in these disciplines.
Retractions in arts and humanities: An analysis of the retraction notices
In the field of arts and humanities, the analysis of retraction notices provides valuable insights into the reasons and patterns underlying the retraction of scholarly works. Researchers have delved deeper into this topic, exploring the content and language used in retraction notices to uncover nuanced details about the retraction process in these domains.
One study found that retracted or corrected articles in the humanities are not more contradicted in scholarly articles compared to those that are neither retracted nor. Interestingly, a qualitative and quantitative citation analysis revealed that there was no drop in the overall number of citations after the year of retraction in the humanities. In fact, a continuous increment in the number of citations after the retraction year was observed in some cases.
| Statistic | Finding |
|---|---|
| Citation analysis on highly cited retracted papers | Constant increase in the number of citations over 20 years, alongside a rise in acknowledging its retraction |
| Post-retraction citations | Majority of citations to retracted articles remain positive despite the retraction notice, irrespective of the reason for retraction |
| Comparison of retracted publications in biomedical field | Number of retracted peer-reviewed publications increased 15 times since early 2000, while total publications increased only 1.44 times |
These findings underscore the complex nature of retractions in the arts and humanities, where the impact of a retraction may not be as straightforward as in other academic disciplines. The analysis of retraction notices can shed light on the nuanced reasons and implications of retractions in these fields, potentially leading to improved practices and policies in scholarly publishing.
The analysis of retraction notices in arts and humanities is a crucial step in understanding the unique challenges and dynamics surrounding retractions in these domains. By delving into the language and content of these notices, researchers can uncover valuable insights that inform the ongoing discussion and debates within the academic community.
Background on Retractions in Arts and Humanities
In the realm of scholarly research, retractions are a growing concern across various disciplines, including the arts and humanities. While retractions occur less frequently in the arts and humanities compared to the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields, their unique research methodologies and approaches make them prone to certain retraction-inducing factors.
Distinctions from STEM Fields
Arts and humanities research often relies on historical, interpretive, and analytical techniques, in contrast to the STEM fields’ emphasis on empirical evidence and quantitative data. These distinct research approaches can lead to nuanced challenges in maintaining the integrity of scholarly work, potentially contributing to a higher incidence of retractions in certain areas of the arts and humanities.
Previous Studies on Arts and Humanities Retractions
Few comprehensive studies have delved into the phenomenon of retractions within the arts and humanities domain. However, notable research efforts, such as the work of Halevi (2020) and the researchers’ own prior investigations, have shed light on the common reasons for retractions in these fields. The most frequently cited factors include plagiarism and significant overlap with previously published research.
| Key Findings on Arts and Humanities Retractions | Prevalence |
|---|---|
| Plagiarism | High |
| Duplicate Publication | Moderate |
| Lack of Identifiability and Accessibility in Retraction Notices | Significant |
| Inconsistent Structure and Content in Retraction Notices | Widespread |
These studies highlight the unique challenges faced by arts and humanities researchers in maintaining the integrity of their scholarly work, underscoring the need for further exploration and improvement in retraction practices within these fields.
Tools and Data Sources Used
This study on retractions in the arts and humanities domain relied on a comprehensive dataset provided by the Retraction Watch database, a leading resource for tracking and analyzing retraction events across various research fields. The researchers leveraged this robust dataset to identify and collect the relevant retraction notices that formed the basis of their analysis.
In addition to the Retraction Watch data, the researchers utilized MITAO, a visual interface for text analysis, to perform topic modeling on the content of the retracted notices. This powerful tool allowed the researchers to uncover common themes, language patterns, and insights that contributed to their understanding of the retraction landscape in the arts and humanities.
| Tool | Description |
|---|---|
| Retraction Watch Database | A comprehensive dataset of retraction notices across multiple research fields, providing the foundation for the study’s analysis. |
| MITAO | A visual text analysis interface used to perform topic modeling on the content of the retraction notices, revealing common themes and insights. |
By leveraging these robust tools and data sources, the researchers were able to conduct a thorough and insightful analysis of retractions in the arts and humanities domain, shedding light on the unique challenges and characteristics of this field compared to STEM disciplines.
Analysis of Retraction Notices Content
The comprehensive analysis of retraction notices in arts and humanities research revealed insightful findings regarding the common language and themes used to address the reasons for retractions. Through a rigorous topic modeling process, the researchers delved into the textual content of the retraction notices, uncovering the level of detail provided and the consistency (or lack thereof) in the structure and content of these notices.
Topic Modeling Results
The topic modeling analysis of the retraction notices uncovered several recurring themes and patterns in the language used to communicate the reasons for retractions. The study found that a significant number of retraction notices lacked explicit details about the causes leading to the annulment of the research articles. In fact, a comprehensive review revealed that nearly 10% of the retraction notices in the randomly sampled set omitted or did not contain information related to the reasons for.
Common Language and Themes
The analysis also identified instances where retraction notices in arts and humanities bore similar text while referring to different retractions, suggesting a lack of consistency in the reporting of reasons for revocation. Furthermore, the study found that the most common reasons for retractions in the arts and humanities domain were “significant overlap with previously published research” and “plagiarism”, accounting for a substantial 77% of the total retractions analyzed.
| Reason for Retraction | Percentage of Total Retractions |
|---|---|
| Significant overlap with previously published research | 54% |
| Plagiarism | 23% |
| Other reasons | 23% |
The findings from this analysis underscore the importance of maintaining transparency and consistency in the reporting of retraction notices, particularly in the arts and humanities domain, where research misconduct cases can have significant implications for the integrity of scholarly communication.
Discussion of Findings
The researchers’ analysis of retraction notices in the arts and humanities field has uncovered several critical issues that warrant immediate attention from the scholarly publishing community. One of the most alarming findings is the lack of identifiability and accessibility of these retraction notices. Often, they are buried within publisher websites or hidden behind paywalls, making it difficult for readers to readily identify retracted publications and the reasons behind the retractions.
This lack of transparency not only undermines the integrity of the scholarly record but also propagates the inadvertent spread of unreliable research. The inconsistent structure and content of retraction notices further compound the problem, as readers struggle to navigate the necessary information to fully understand the context and implications of a retraction.
Implications for Scholarly Publishing
The implications of these findings for scholarly publishing are profound. Retraction, a critical mechanism to maintain the quality and reliability of academic literature, is currently failing to fulfill its intended purpose effectively. Publishers, as the gatekeepers of scholarly communication, bear a significant responsibility in ensuring that retraction practices are transparent, consistent, and accessible to the entire research community.
Recommendations for Improving Retraction Practices
Based on the study’s findings, the researchers propose several recommendations to improve retraction practices and strengthen the integrity of the scholarly publishing ecosystem:
- Standardize the structure and content of retraction notices to ensure they are informative, accessible, and consistently presented across publications.
- Develop a comprehensive taxonomy of retraction categories with corresponding metadata to facilitate better understanding and tracking of the reasons behind retractions.
- Coordinate the retraction process across stakeholders, including publishers, editors, and authors, to ensure timely and transparent communication of retraction status.
- Educate the research community, including authors, reviewers, and readers, about the importance of publication correction processes and the role of the scholarly record stewardship.
By addressing these critical issues, the scholarly publishing industry can regain the trust of the research community and the public, ensuring that the dissemination of knowledge is based on the highest standards of integrity and accountability.
The findings and recommendations outlined in this study underscore the need for a collaborative effort among all stakeholders in the academic publishing ecosystem to reduce the inadvertent spread of retracted research and uphold the reliability of scholarly communication. Only through such concerted action can the arts and humanities disciplines maintain their credibility and continue to make meaningful contributions to the advancement of knowledge.
Explore the full studyon retractions in the arts and.
Conclusion
The researchers conclude that their study represents a pioneering effort to deeply understand the retraction phenomenon in the arts and humanities domain through a meticulous analysis of retraction notices. By examining the content, structure, and transparency of these notices, they have shed light on the unique challenges and patterns that distinguish retractions in the humanities from those in the STEM fields.
While the findings reveal concerning trends, such as the lack of identifiability and accessibility in retraction notices, as well as inconsistencies in the reporting of investigations, the researchers emphasize the importance of further research with larger datasets. This will enable the confirmation and expansion of their insights, ultimately leading to more robust solutions for enhancing scholarly integrity and transparency within the arts and humanities disciplines.
The researchers remain hopeful that this study will serve as a catalyst for increased attention and action towards improving retraction practices in the humanities. By addressing the unique challenges faced in this domain, the research community can work together to uphold the highest standards of scholarly rigor and ethical conduct, ensuring the integrity of the arts and humanities literature for generations to come.