Conexiant
Login
  • The Analytical Scientist
  • The Cannabis Scientist
  • The Medicine Maker
  • The Ophthalmologist
  • The Pathologist
  • The Traditional Scientist
The Analytical Scientist
  • Explore

    Explore

    • Latest
    • News & Research
    • Trends & Challenges
    • Keynote Interviews
    • Opinion & Personal Narratives
    • Product Profiles
    • App Notes

    Featured Topics

    • Mass Spectrometry
    • Chromatography
    • Spectroscopy

    Issues

    • Latest Issue
    • Archive
  • Topics

    Techniques & Tools

    • Mass Spectrometry
    • Chromatography
    • Spectroscopy
    • Microscopy
    • Sensors
    • Data & AI

    • View All Topics

    Applications & Fields

    • Clinical
    • Environmental
    • Food, Beverage & Agriculture
    • Pharma & Biopharma
    • Omics
    • Forensics
  • People & Profiles

    People & Profiles

    • Power List
    • Voices in the Community
    • Sitting Down With
    • Authors & Contributors
  • Business & Education

    Business & Education

    • Innovation
    • Business & Entrepreneurship
    • Career Pathways
  • Events
    • Live Events
    • Webinars
  • Multimedia
    • Video
Subscribe
Subscribe

False

The Analytical Scientist / Issues / 2023 / Oct / Rising Retractions
Business & Entrepreneurship Chemical Data and AI Career Pathways

Rising Retractions

What proportion of chemistry paper retractions over the past 20 years are due to misconduct?

By Jessica Allerton 10/06/2023 1 min read

Share

Between 2001 and 2021 the Retraction Watch database recorded a total of 1,292 Chemistry paper retractions. What were the most common reasons for retractions? Are retractions increasing? How fast do retractions occur? Yulia Sevryugina and Ryan Jimenez from the University of Michigan delved into the data (1); we summarize their main findings below.


“Inevitably, errors may occasionally penetrate the published scholarly literature, but a retraction shall not be considered a penalty but rather an act of repair, an intrinsic part of the research lifecycle.

“The reliance of chemistry professionals on the peer-reviewed form of scholarly communication makes it imperative for authors to understand how to report their mistakes. Despite the general support for promoting the ‘heroic acts’ of authors retracting their publications when a serious problem has been identified, the negative connotation of retractions makes authors reluctant to self-retract. In this regard, adopting Barbour’s proposal of substituting the term ‘retraction’ for a more neutral ‘amendment’ could help mitigate the derogatory stigma associated with the process of correcting the publication record.

“Maintaining scientific integrity is the collective responsibility of authors, reviewers, editors, and all consumers of scientific knowledge. In this viewpoint, we call for a vigilant citizenry of science-ethics-literate chemistry professionals.”

Newsletters

Receive the latest analytical science news, personalities, education, and career development – weekly to your inbox.

Newsletter Signup Image

References

  1. Y Sevryugina, R Jimenez, “Analysis of Retracted Manuscripts in Chemistry: Errors vs Misconduct,” ACS Omega (2023). DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.3c03689. 

About the Author(s)

Jessica Allerton

Associate Editor, The Analytical Scientist

More Articles by Jessica Allerton

False

Advertisement

Recommended

False

False

The Analytical Scientist
Subscribe

About

  • About Us
  • Work at Conexiant Europe
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Advertise With Us
  • Contact Us

Copyright © 2025 Texere Publishing Limited (trading as Conexiant), with registered number 08113419 whose registered office is at Booths No. 1, Booths Park, Chelford Road, Knutsford, England, WA16 8GS.