In the paper “Ranking-Based Sanctions for Retraction-Afflicted Elite Researchers,” published in Accountability in Research, the authors propose a framework aimed at holding prominent researchers accountable for retractions. While methodologically detailed, the approach is fundamentally flawed: it reflects a Dark Ages approach to accountability by assigning blame without establishing culpability, misapplying deterrence logic, and actively undermining the process of scientific self-correction. By treating all retractions as equivalent, the framework blurs the critical distinction between deliberate misconduct and honest error, undermining both fairness and scientific integrity, while fostering perverse incentives that discourage transparency, openness, and the responsible correction of the scientific record. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08989621.2025.2549008
A parallel structural problem exists in major databases such as Scopus and Web of Science, which apply a single, undifferentiated “retraction” label to all withdrawn publications, regardless of whether the underlying cause is fraud, negligence, or honest error. Given the central role these databases play in hiring, promotion, funding, and collaboration decisions, this practice foreseeably and systematically stigmatizes researchers who act in good faith by implicitly associating them with misconduct. Empirical evidence shows that retractions result in enduring harm to reputation and career mobility, often spilling over to an author’s non-retracted work, with early-career researchers being particularly vulnerable. It is therefore urgent that Scopus and Web of Science adopt at least a minimal retraction typology distinguishing intentional misconduct, negligence, and honest mistake.
Such a reform would preserve accountability where warranted while mitigating unjust, foreseeable, and potentially actionable harm to researchers’ professional standing. Continued reliance on an undifferentiated retraction label risks rendering these databases complicit in the unfair stigmatization of researchers and morally, if not legally, responsible for the avoidable damage inflicted on scientific careers. Science already bears the tragic scars of researchers whose careers were shattered—and in some heartbreaking cases, who took their own lives—after papers were retracted, even when they were later found innocent of direct misconduct. What science must prevent now is another suicide—this time triggered by retractions stemming from honest errors.
Declaration of Competing Interests - I previously argued that retractions in academic publishing should adhere to the principles of justice exemplified in legal systems, with consequences carefully calibrated according to intent, magnitude of harm, and accountability, thereby ensuring that corrections serve the integrity of the scholarly record rather than functioning as arbitrary or punitive measures akin to those of the Inquisition. https://19-pacheco-torgal-19.blogspot.com/2025/12/letter-to-editor-retraction-typologies.html
