Communication

The Silver Lining in Bulk Retractions Communication
(Image: Bruce Boyes /Pixabay)

The Silver Lining in Bulk Retractions

November 20, 2023 1632

This is the opening from a longer post by Adya Misra, the research integrity and inclusion manager at Social Science Space’s parent, Sage. The full post, which addresses the hows and the whys of bulk retractions in Sage’s academic journals, appears at Retraction Watch.

Headshot of Ayda Misra
Adya Misra

When I began my graduate work almost 15 years ago, retractions of papers in academic journals were rare, reserved mainly for clear misconduct or serious errors. Today, rarity has given way to routine, with retractions coming more often and increasingly in bulk. 

Sage is not immune to large-scale retractions, nor are we passive observers of their growth. As Retraction Watch wrote, we were “one of the first publishers to recognize large-scale peer review manipulation and begin retracting papers in bulk nine years ago.” Recently, we issued some major retractions; just in the last few months, we put out 37 from Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers and 21 from Concurrent Engineering. And there are more to come. 

While we don’t celebrate this type of action, the news is not all bad. The high numbers of retractions at times reflect a problem of industrialized cheating, but also, as in our case, a belief that rigorous scholarship – robustly reviewed by researchers who are experts in their fields – can and should improve the world. Sage was founded on this principle, and it guides everything we do. 

We take our role of vigorously correcting the academic record very seriously because we believe in the scholarly process. We also know that every part of the process is managed by humans with biases (conscious or unconscious), agendas, heavy workloads, and – at times – dubious incentives.  

As research integrity manager at Sage, I work to safeguard the credibility of the research published in more than 60,000 articles every year across more than 1,100 journals. In my role, I see a lot of unethical practices: peer review rings, where researchers unfairly influence the review process; paper mills that produce mass-fabricated research papers, and the brazen trend of selling authorship or entire papers on private or public forums. When it comes to preventing and correcting this type of action,  much goes on behind the scenes.

Read the rest at Retraction Watch

Related Articles

Advocating For and Supporting Academic Freedom
Ethics
May 28, 2025

Advocating For and Supporting Academic Freedom

Read Now
Academic Freedom and Censorship: Why Librarians are Better Together
Ethics
May 27, 2025

Academic Freedom and Censorship: Why Librarians are Better Together

Read Now
The Chilling Impact of Censorship in Higher Education
Ethics
May 26, 2025

The Chilling Impact of Censorship in Higher Education

Read Now
Mapping the Connections: Understanding the Network of Social Science Editors-in-Chief 
Communication
April 29, 2025

Mapping the Connections: Understanding the Network of Social Science Editors-in-Chief 

Read Now
How Science Can Adapt to a New Normal

How Science Can Adapt to a New Normal

Scientific institutions are in full scramble. No amount of diplomacy or charity can interpret the modern moment as anything other than an […]

Read Now
Nominations Open for Downs Intellectual Freedom Award

Nominations Open for Downs Intellectual Freedom Award

The School of Information Sciences at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign seeks nominations for the 2024 Robert B. Downs Intellectual Freedom Award. […]

Read Now
When Common Sense is Neither

When Common Sense is Neither

It’s “the revolution of common sense,” President Donald Trump announced in his second inaugural address. And so it is. The latest installment […]

Read Now
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments