Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Scientists should get credit for correcting the literature

Nature Human Behaviour volume 7, page 472 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

To the Editor — The research landscape is changing, with a sharper focus on “the credibility of the published literature”1. Credibility is highly reliant on the self-correction of science, and, in this context, self-correction by authors plays a crucial role. Of course, retractions — especially self-retractions — are far from black and white (for example, ranging from malfeasance to good-faith corrections of the research record). However, it is time to reinforce that retractions are not just for research misconduct; instead, they are a valuable tool for correcting honest errors in the research record2. What is missing are incentives for self-retractions, to counter historically negative perceptions. In brief, it is time to tackle the question: how should good-faith self-retractions be embraced in the assessment of researchers?

Hiring and promotion committees should recognize self-retractions as objective contributions to science, as such actions to keep the research record straight make the literature more reliable and prevent research waste. In the grant funding process, many funding agencies are moving to a more inclusive review of research outputs and achievements in curriculum vitae3, but there is still a blind spot in funding criteria: looking at retractions and self-retractions as part of the assessment. In this process, self-retractions for honest error, for example, should be rewarded in some way. The All European Academies is among those suggesting a broader look at this issue in its 2017 revised code, recommending credit for corrections of publications4. This recommendation echoes the idea that the research article should be a ‘living document’5 rather than a set-in-stone record. A ‘living document’, more open to corrections, will help science to meet the demands of its new social contract with society to “ensure that scientific knowledge is ‘socially robust’.”6 We believe early-career researchers can help to achieve this goal7. In its timely approach to ‘responsible research assessment’, the Global Research Council stated that assessment criteria should encompass an individual’s net contribution to science8. In this sense, we propose that self-retractions for honest error be included in the criteria for net contributions to research by hiring and promotion committees and funding agencies.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Soderberg, C. K. et al. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5, 990–997 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. McNutt, M., Córdova, F. A. & Allison, D. B. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, 41 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hatch, A. & Fritch, R. Cross-funder action to improve the assessment of researchers for grant funding. DORA https://sfdora.org/2022/01/19/cross-funder-action-to-improve-the-assessment-of-researchers-for-grant-funding/ (2022).

  4. All European Academies (ALLEA). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity https://www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity-2017.pdf (2017).

  5. Shanahan, D. R. Trials 16, 151 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Gibbons, M. Nature 402, C81–C84 (1999).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5, 1591 (2021).

  8. Global Research Council (GRC). Responsible Research Assessment https://globalresearchcouncil.org/fileadmin/documents/GRC_Publications/GRC_RRA_Conference_Summary_Report.pdf (2021).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Science Education Program, Institute of Medical Biochemistry Leopoldo de Meis (IBqM), Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

    Mariana D. Ribeiro & Sonia M. R. Vasconcelos

  2. Research Ethics Program, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, US

    Michael Kalichman

Authors
  1. Mariana D. Ribeiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Kalichman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sonia M. R. Vasconcelos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sonia M. R. Vasconcelos.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ribeiro, M.D., Kalichman, M. & Vasconcelos, S.M.R. Scientists should get credit for correcting the literature. Nat Hum Behav 7, 472 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01415-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01415-6

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing