CASRAI Dictionary

Tag: NISO CREC

  • Publication Misconduct in Research: The Post-Publication Process

    Publication misconduct in research discovered after a paper is already public triggers a defined post-publication pipeline: a reader or institution files a complaint, the journal opens a formal investigation guided by COPE, an expression of concern may be issued while it runs, and a retraction or correction follows if misconduct is confirmed.

    Publication misconduct is unethical conduct in the publishing process itself — fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, duplicate submission, or fraudulent (ghost, guest or gift) authorship — as distinct from poor research design or an honest error in the underlying study. Once a flawed paper has already been indexed, cited and built upon, the mechanics of fixing the record are entirely different from catching the same problem at peer review. This article sets out what actually happens once that process starts, who runs it, and how the outcome gets communicated to readers and indexers.

    What counts as publication misconduct once a paper is already public?

    Publication misconduct covers conduct in the writing and submission of a paper, not the underlying experiment: fabrication (inventing data), falsification (manipulating images, figures or results), plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, and fraudulent authorship such as ghost, guest or gift authorship. The Royal Society’s publishing ethics policy defines research misconduct as “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results” — and explicitly excludes “honest error or differences of opinion” from that definition.

    That exclusion matters at the post-publication stage. An editor’s first job on receiving a complaint is not to assume guilt but to classify the report: is this a correctable mistake, an authorship dispute, or a potential integrity breach that needs a formal case? Only the third category enters the investigation pipeline described below.

    What triggers a post-publication review?

    Post-publication scrutiny rarely originates with the journal itself. It is most often triggered externally, then formalised internally once a case is opened.

    • Reader or third-party complaints — direct emails to the editor, or public flags on post-publication review platforms such as PubPeer.
    • Institutional referral — a university research integrity office notifies the journal after its own internal inquiry.
    • Journal screening tools — image-manipulation and paper-mill detection software run against submitted or already-published figures.
    • Whistleblowers — co-authors, former colleagues or lab members raising concerns directly.
    • Funder or sponsor notice — a grant body flags a discrepancy found during its own audit.

    Under the ICMJE Recommendations, editors who receive “convincing evidence” of misconduct have a duty to pursue the matter — including by contacting the authors’ institution — rather than simply declining to act on an anonymous tip.

    How does the editorial investigation actually run?

    Once a case is opened, the journal follows a sequence set out in COPE’s guidance rather than improvising case by case. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Retraction Guidelines (2019) and its accompanying flowcharts are the reference most editors use to decide what to do next, and in what order.

    1. Initial screening — the editor checks whether the complaint is plausible and falls within the journal’s remit.
    2. Author response — the corresponding author is asked to explain, and usually to supply raw data, original images or lab records.
    3. Institutional referral — if the explanation is unsatisfactory or the allegation is serious, the editor notifies the authors’ institution, which runs its own inquiry under its research integrity policy; the journal does not adjudicate misconduct itself.
    4. Interim notice — while the inquiry is unresolved, the journal may publish an editorial expression of concern attached to the paper.
    5. Final notice — depending on the outcome, the journal publishes a correction, a retraction, or lifts the expression of concern with no further action.

    This sequencing is the core distinction between research-stage and publication-stage misconduct handling: at the research stage, a funder or institution can simply stop a study; at the publication stage, the journal must communicate every step publicly, because the paper is already part of the citable literature.

    Retraction, correction, or expression of concern — what is the difference?

    These three notice types are not interchangeable, and mixing them up is one of the most common errors in coverage of publication misconduct. Each has a distinct trigger, a distinct effect on the paper’s citability, and a distinct authority that can issue it.

    Notice type When it is issued Effect on the paper Who can issue it
    Correction / erratum / corrigendum An error is confirmed but conclusions still hold Paper stands; correction is linked to it Editor, with author agreement
    Editorial expression of concern Investigation is open but unresolved Paper stands but is flagged as unreliable pending outcome Editor, independently of authors
    Retraction Misconduct or unreliable findings confirmed Paper is marked “RETRACTED” but remains accessible for transparency Editor, authors, or institution

    A retracted paper is not deleted. Standard practice, reflected in NISO RP-45-2022, Communication of Retractions, Removals, and Expressions of Concern (CREC), requires the original text to remain online with a clear, permanent watermark and a linked retraction notice explaining the reason — so the scientific record stays transparent rather than simply erased. Since 2023, Crossref has hosted the freely available Retraction Watch Database, giving publishers, institutions and reference managers a shared, machine-readable source of retraction metadata rather than relying on scattered publisher notices alone.

    Common questions about post-publication misconduct

    What is the difference between a retraction, a correction, and an expression of concern?

    A correction fixes a confirmed error while the paper’s conclusions stand. An expression of concern flags an unresolved investigation without prejudging guilt. A retraction is issued once misconduct or unreliable findings are confirmed, permanently marking the paper as withdrawn from the reliable literature while keeping it accessible.

    What triggers a post-publication misconduct investigation?

    Investigations are usually triggered by a reader complaint, a post-publication review platform flag, an institutional referral, a whistleblower report, or automated screening for image manipulation or paper-mill patterns. Under the ICMJE Recommendations, editors receiving credible evidence have a duty to pursue it rather than dismiss it.

    Does a retracted paper disappear from the internet?

    No. Under NISO’s CREC recommended practice, retracted articles must remain accessible with a permanent watermark and a linked retraction notice. Removal is reserved for rare cases involving legal risk, such as defamation or serious safety hazards, not ordinary misconduct findings.

    Who decides whether a published paper is retracted?

    The journal editor makes the final call, but the decision is informed by the authors’ institution, which runs the substantive misconduct inquiry. COPE’s Retraction Guidelines position the journal as the notice-issuing authority and the institution as the fact-finding authority — the two roles are kept deliberately separate.

    What does this mean for institutions and authors?

    For research administrators, a post-publication complaint is not a journal-only event. Institutions are expected to run a parallel inquiry, respond to editor requests for data within a defined timeframe, and — if misconduct is confirmed — cooperate on the retraction notice’s wording under COPE guidance. Authors named on a retracted paper should expect it to be discoverable through Crossref’s Retraction Watch Database and CrossMark update badges wherever it is cited or indexed, regardless of original host.

    Contributor-role clarity also matters here: disputes over who is accountable for which part of a paper are easier to resolve when contributions were recorded precisely at submission. CASRAI’s authorship resources and research administration guidance cover structuring that accountability before a dispute reaches an editor’s desk.

    Where the retraction pipeline is heading

    Two shifts are changing post-publication misconduct handling. First, machine-readable retraction metadata — now centralised at Crossref rather than scattered across publisher sites — propagates a retraction to citation databases and discovery layers automatically, closing a gap that once left retracted papers silently cited for years. Second, paper-mill detection is shifting discovery earlier, toward pre-publication screening — but the CREC-based post-publication pipeline remains the backstop for everything that gets through regardless. The mark of a well-functioning system is not the absence of retractions; it is a transparent, standardised trail from complaint to notice that any reader can follow.

  • Retraction Statement: 5 Elements COPE Requires

    A retraction statement must identify the article and its authors, state the specific reason for retraction, name who initiated it, record whether authors agree, and be permanently and bidirectionally linked to the original publication. These five elements come from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Retraction Guidelines and the NISO Recommended Practice for Communication of Retractions, Removals, and Expressions of Concern (CREC, RP-45-2024). A retraction statement is the formal notice, issued by a journal editor or publisher, that withdraws confidence in a previously published article’s findings while keeping the original text permanently accessible and marked as retracted.

    This guide is a drafting walkthrough, not a policy overview — it maps what COPE decides, what NISO’s CREC standard requires you to structure, and what EASE’s checklist helps you verify, into a single sequence editors and research-integrity offices can follow when a retraction notice actually has to go out.

    What must a retraction statement include?

    A compliant retraction statement combines a governance decision with a metadata obligation. COPE’s Retraction Guidelines set out when and why a retraction should happen; the NISO CREC Recommended Practice, published in June 2024, sets out how that decision must be communicated so it propagates reliably across databases, citation managers and search indexes. Combining both frameworks gives five required elements.

    # Element Source requirement
    1 Full identification of the retracted article (title, authors, DOI, citation) COPE Retraction Guidelines (2019)
    2 A specific, factual reason for retraction, distinguishing honest error from misconduct COPE Retraction Guidelines; NISO RP-45-2024
    3 Identification of who initiated the retraction (authors, editor, institution, publisher) COPE Retraction Guidelines
    4 Documented author agreement or disagreement with the decision COPE Retraction Guidelines
    5 Bidirectional, machine-readable linking between notice and original, with prompt free access NISO RP-45-2024 (CREC); COPE

    The original article is never deleted. Under COPE’s guidance it must remain online, clearly watermarked as retracted on every page of the PDF, with the retraction notice linked in both directions so readers encountering either document see the other. The EASE Standardised Retraction Form operationalises this as a checklist editors can complete before publication of the notice, reducing the inconsistency that COPE and NISO both identify as a persistent weakness in current practice.

    How do you document the reason for retraction?

    The reason section is where most retraction statements fail. A retraction statement must state, in unambiguous language, which specific data, figures or conclusions are affected and why — not merely that “errors were found.” Vague or reason-free notices deny authors the chance to explain honest mistakes and, per research cited in publisher guidance on this subject, remove the deterrent effect a clear misconduct finding is meant to provide.

    In practice, reasons cluster into recurring categories that function as informal reason codes across journals:

    • Honest error (calculation, methodological or reagent mistakes)
    • Data fabrication or falsification
    • Image or figure manipulation or duplication
    • Plagiarism or duplicate/overlapping publication
    • Ethical violations (consent, animal welfare, authorship disputes)
    • Irreproducibility discovered post-publication

    Plagiarism and data manipulation remain the most frequently cited categories in large-scale retraction analyses, and Nature reported that more than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 alone — a record volume that intensified pressure on journals to standardise how reasons are recorded rather than merely disclosed. Where an institutional investigation produced the finding, the statement should attribute it directly to that body rather than restating it as the editor’s own conclusion.

    Who signs off on a retraction statement?

    Under COPE guidelines, the editor holds final authority to retract, but authors retain the right to have their agreement or disagreement recorded in the published notice. This is not a formality: a notice that silently presents unanimous agreement when one co-author disputed the decision misrepresents the record and can itself become a subject of complaint.

    Three sign-off outcomes are possible, and the statement should say plainly which applies:

    • Full agreement — all authors accept the retraction and its stated reason.
    • Partial agreement — some authors agree; named dissenting authors are recorded with their position.
    • Editor-initiated without author agreement — used when authors are unreachable, uncooperative, or contest findings the editor and, where applicable, the institution consider conclusive.

    Because contributor-level disputes often drive disagreement over sign-off, journals increasingly ask retracting authors to clarify individual contributions during the process — a task that structured contributor role taxonomies support. CASRAI originated the CRediT contributor role taxonomy in 2014; the standard is now stewarded by NISO as ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022 and is widely used to attribute exactly whose CRediT contributor role is implicated when a retraction turns on data curation, analysis or investigation responsibilities rather than the paper as a whole. Research-integrity offices handling authorship disputes alongside a retraction should document this separately from the notice itself.

    How should a retraction be linked and communicated?

    NISO’s CREC Recommended Practice requires that retraction status be carried as structured, machine-readable metadata, not just prose in a PDF — so that discovery layers, citation managers and indexing services display the retraction consistently wherever the article appears, not only on the publisher’s own platform. This closes a long-documented gap: readers who encounter a retracted paper via a secondary database, preprint mirror or reference manager have often seen no retraction indicator at all.

    Practical requirements drawn from CREC and COPE together include:

    • Publishing the notice promptly and making it freely accessible, regardless of the original article’s access status
    • Applying a persistent, visible watermark to every page of the retracted PDF
    • Linking the notice and the original article bidirectionally via persistent identifiers (DOI)
    • Propagating retraction status to abstracting and indexing services and reference-linking systems
    • Retaining the retracted article permanently in the archive rather than removing it

    Retraction Watch’s database independently tracks whether these obligations are actually met, and its long-running “ideal retraction notice” analysis remains a useful benchmark precisely because so many notices still omit the reason, the initiator, or the sign-off status that COPE and NISO both specify.

    Common questions about retraction statements

    What is a retraction notice?

    A retraction notice is the published statement announcing that a journal article’s findings can no longer be relied upon. It is linked to the original article, states the reason, and remains permanently in the record — the article itself is marked as retracted, not deleted.

    What are the most common reasons for retraction?

    Large-scale analyses consistently rank plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, and image or figure manipulation as the leading causes, followed by honest error and duplicate publication. Reason categories should always be stated explicitly rather than left generic.

    Do retracted studies still get cited?

    Yes. Published citation-tracking studies show retracted papers continue to be cited for years afterward, often because citing authors are unaware of the retraction. This is the core problem the NISO CREC standard’s machine-readable metadata requirement is designed to reduce.

    Can a retracted paper be republished?

    Under COPE’s position on this question, authors may republish reliable portions of a retracted work, provided they transparently notify the new journal’s editors of the prior retraction and its reason. Silent resubmission of retracted material is treated as a fresh ethics violation.

    What this means for editors and institutions

    Retraction volume is rising, not falling: Nature’s 2023 count of over 10,000 retractions was described by integrity researchers as “the tip of the iceberg,” reflecting better detection tools rather than worse research. That trajectory makes standardisation, not case-by-case drafting, the sustainable path for editorial offices and university research-integrity units alike.

    Editors who adopt the COPE-plus-CREC sequence — decide, document the reason, record sign-off, publish with persistent linked metadata — produce notices that hold up under later scrutiny from Retraction Watch, institutional auditors, and the authors themselves. Research-administration offices building or reviewing their own research-administration retraction workflow should treat the EASE form as the pre-publication check and NISO RP-45-2024 as the technical specification the published notice must satisfy.