URL of this page: https://medlineplus.gov/podcast/transcript081417.html

To Your Health: NLM update Transcript

Retraction redefined?: 08/14/2017

NLM logo

Greetings from the National Library of Medicine and MedlinePlus.gov

Regards to all our listeners!

I'm Rob Logan, Ph.D., senior staff, U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM).

Here is what's new this week in To Your Health, a consumer health oriented podcast from NLM, that helps you use MedlinePlus to follow up on weekly topics.

The process to retract research may be so slow and stigmatizing that a recent workshop of science and medical journal editors suggested several replacement terms for the word 'retraction', finds a report recently published in Science.

Science reports retractions currently are strongly associated with research misconduct and public shaming, although some withdrawals of published manuscripts in major journals sometimes do not stem from author misbehavior or intentional inaccuracy.

Incidentally, Science refers to retraction (and we quote): 'as the dreaded r-word' (end of quote).

While Science explains stigma may be one reason to rethink the current retraction system, expedience provides a second rationale. Science writes: (and we quote): "Universities and journals are often slow to retract a paper, waiting for the outcome of lengthy investigations. Journals sometimes add an 'editorial expression of concern' to a paper in the meantime. But such notes can be stigmatizing too, and if it's clear the data are wrong, some argue it's better to pull a paper and report the causes later" (end of quote).

Science reports a recent workshop of science and medical journal editors proposed several new terms that they perceive are more precise and provide some wiggle room for all concerned.

For example, instead of a retraction, under the new suggested guidelines an editor can place a paper under (and we quote) 'withdrawal' (end of quote), which means new evidence, data, results, methods, or theoretical arguments invalidate the claims of a previously published refereed manuscript.

Another proposed option declares a manuscript could be (and we quote) 'canceled' (end of quote), if its exit is the publisher's or editor's fault — instead of the author.

The workshop additionally proposes three other terms that cover situations: where the original authors remove a manuscript; where a paper contains serious risks to society, individuals, or the environment; or if a guideline or recommendation article becomes outdated and the original authors are unable to revise it. The workshop was held at Stanford University late last year.

Under the workshop's guidelines, Science notes the word 'retraction' would be used only if a manuscript's evidence is both incorrect and fraudulent.

Science reports some of the workshop's suggestions have met with some resistance because they may not address whether it is a journal's responsibility to keep the literature accurate - or find and punish those who engage in academic misconduct.

Science adds there has been a sharp increase in retractions in the 21st century, which may undergird the current concern. Retractionwatch.com, an independent publication, keeps close track of retractions in biomedical journals.

Regardless, the proposed changes strike us as misunderstanding that one purpose of withdrawing scientific articles is to boost the profession's integrity and transparency with the public more than peers. While an array of terms to explain retraction may be precise and internally useful, it strikes us as confusing to taxpayers and citizens.

Meanwhile, the National Human Genome Research Institute provides an overview of clinical research within the 'start here' section of MedlinePlus.gov's understanding medical research health topic page. The Lewy Body Dementia Association adds a website about how to read a research paper also in the 'start here' section of MedlinePlus.gov's understanding medical research health topic page.

You can sign up to receive updates about understanding medical research as they become available on MedlinePlus.gov.

To find MedlinePlus.gov's understanding medical research health topic page, please type 'understanding medical research' in the search box on MedlinePlus.gov's home page, then, click on 'understanding medical research (National Library of Medicine).' MedlinePlus also has a helpful health topic page devoted to medical ethics.

Before I go, this reminder... MedlinePlus.gov is authoritative. It's free. We do not accept advertising .... and is written to help you.

To find MedlinePlus.gov, just type 'MedlinePlus.gov' in any web browser, such as Firefox, Safari, Chrome, or Explorer on any platform.

We encourage you to use MedlinePlus and please recommend it to your friends. MedlinePlus is available in English and Spanish. Some medical information is available in 48 other languages.

A written transcript of recent podcasts is available by typing 'To your health' in the search box on MedlinePlus.gov's home page.

The National Library of Medicine is one of 27 institutes and centers within the National Institutes of Health. The National Institutes of Health is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

A disclaimer — the information presented in this program should not replace the medical advice of your physician. You should not use this information to diagnose or treat any disease without first consulting with your physician or other health care provider.

It was nice to be with you. Please join us here next week and here's to your health!