Abstract
In recent years, the changing landscape for the conduct and assessment of research and of researchers has increased scrutiny of the reward systems of science. In this context, correcting the research record, including retractions, has gained attention and space in the publication system. One question is the possible influence of retractions on the careers of scientists. It might be assessed, for example, through citation patterns or productivity rates for authors who have had one or more retractions. This is an emerging issue today, with growing discussions in the research community about impact. We have explored the influence of retractions on grant review criteria. Here, we present results of a qualitative study exploring the views of a group of six representatives of funding agencies from different countries and of a follow-up survey of 224 reviewers in the US. These reviewers have served on panels for the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and/or a few other agencies. We collected their perceptions about the influence of self-correction of the literature and of retractions on grant decisions. Our results suggest that correcting the research record, for honest error or misconduct, is perceived as an important mechanism to strengthen the reliability of science, among most respondents. However, retractions and self-correcting the literature at large are not factors influencing grant review, and dealing with retractions in reviewing grants is an open question for funders.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
All European Academies (ALLEA). (2017). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-ofconduct_en.pdf
Ayoubi, C., Pezzoni, M., & Visentin, F. (2021). Does it pay to do novel science the selectivity patterns in science funding. Science and Public Policy, 48(5), 635–648. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scab031
Azoulay, P., Bonatti, A., & Krieger, J. (2017). The career effects of scandal: Evidence from scientific retractions. Research Policy, 46(9), 1552–1569.
Bendiscioli, S. (2019). The troubles with peer review for allocating research funding. EMBO Reports, 20(12), e49472. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201949472
Breaking the stigma of retraction. (2021). Nature Human Behavior, 5(1591). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01266-7.
Brian Xu, S., & Hu, G. (2022). A cross-disciplinary and severity-based study of author-related reasons for retraction. Accountability in Research, 29(8), 512–536. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2021.1952870
Casadevall, A. (2019). Duke University’s huge misconduct fine is a reminder to reward rigour. Nature, 568, 7. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-01032-w
Curry, S., de Rijcke, S., Hatch, A., Pillay, D.G., van der Weijden, I., Wilsdon, J. (2020). The changing role of funders in responsible research assessment: Progress, obstacles and the way ahead. Research on Research Institute. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13227914.v1
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG). (2018). Rules of procedure for dealing with scientific misconduct. Retrieved from https://www.dfg.de/formulare/80_01/80_01_en.pdf
Ebersole, C. R., Axt, J. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2016). Scientists’ reputations are based on getting it right not being right. PLOS Biology, 14(5): e1002460. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002460
Falk-Krzesinski, H. J., & Tobin, S. C. (2015). How do I review thee? Let me count the ways: A comparison of research grant proposal review criteria across US federal funding agencies. The Journal of Research Administration, 46(2), 79–94.
Fanelli, D. (2016). Set up a ‘self-retraction’ system for honest errors. Nature, 531, 415. https://doi.org/10.1038/531415a
Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(42), 17028–17033. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212247109
Freedman, L. P., Venugopalan, G., & Wisman, R. (2017). Reproducibility 2020: Progress and priorities. F1000Research, 6, 604. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11334.1
Furman, J. L., Jensen, K., & Murray, F. (2012). Governing knowledge in the scientific community: Exploring the role of retractions in biomedicine. Research Policy, 41(2), 276290.
Global Research Council (GRC). (2020). Responsible research assessment. Retrieved from https://www.globalresearchcouncil.org/news/responsible-research-assessment/
Hatch, A., & Fritch, R. (2022). Cross-funder action to improve the assessment of researchers for grant funding. Retrieved from https://sfdora.org/2022/01/19/cross-funder-action-to-improve-theassessment-of-researchers-for-grant-funding/
Janke, C. (2018) A unified reviewing format for grant applications and evaluations. EMBO Reports, 19(2), 187-188. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201745611
Kozlov, M., et al. (2023). Biden calls for boosts in science spending to keep US competitive. Nature, 615, 572–573. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00740-8
Lu, S. F., Jin, G. Z., Uzzi, B., & Jones, B. (2013). The retraction penalty: Evidence from the Web of Science. Science Reports, 3, 3146. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep03146
Mongeon, P., & Larivière, V. (2016). Costly collaborations: The impact of scientific fraud on co-authors’ careers. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(3), 535–542.
Mutz, R., Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H-D. (2012). Heterogeneity of inter-rater reliabilities of grant peer reviews and its determinants: A general estimating equations approach. PLoS ONE, 7(10), e48509. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0048509
Ribeiro, M. D., Kalichman, M., & Vasconcelos, S. M. (2022). Retractions and rewards in science: An open question for reviewers and funders. bioRxiv, 2022-05. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.31.494225
Ribeiro, M. D., & Vasconcelos, S. M. R. (2018). Retractions covered by retraction watch in the 2013–2015 period: Prevalence for the most productive countries. Scientometrics, 114(2), 719–734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2621-6
Ribeiro, M.D., & Vasconcelos, S. (2020). Should corrections of the literature influence grant review? https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/49vpa
São Paulo Research Foundation (FAFESP) (2012). Code for good scientific practices. Retrieved from http://fapesp.br/boaspraticas/FAPESP-Code_of_Good_Scientific_Practice_jun2012.pdf
Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR). (2019). Retrieved from https://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php
Soderberg, C. K., Errington, T. M., Schiavone, S. R., et al. (2021). Initial evidence of research quality of registered reports compared with the standard publishing model. Nature Human Behavior, 5, 990–997. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01142-4
Wang, T., King, Q. R., Wang, H., & Chen, W. (2019). Retracted publications in the biomedical literature from open access journals. Science and Engineering Ethics, 25(3), 855–868. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0040-6
Acknowledgements
We thank the grant reviewers and representatives of funding agencies who contributed to this study. CAPES is also acknowledged for the support granted to the first author (Ribeiro, MD) to conduct a Sandwich PhD period at University of California San Diego (UCSD).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Ribeiro, M.D., Kalichman, M.W. & Vasconcelos, S.M.R. Retractions and Rewards in Science: An Open Question for Reviewers and Funders. Sci Eng Ethics 29, 26 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-023-00446-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-023-00446-0