CASRAI Dictionary

Tag: retraction in academic publishing

  • Editorial Expression of Concern vs Retraction

    An editorial expression of concern is a notice a journal publishes to flag credible but unresolved doubts about a paper’s reliability, without retracting it. Editors use it instead of a retraction when the evidence is inconclusive, an institutional investigation is ongoing, or a fair resolution will take months rather than weeks.

    An editorial expression of concern (sometimes abbreviated EEoC) is defined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) as a journal notice about potential misconduct or unreliable findings, issued when the available evidence does not yet meet the threshold for a correction or a retraction. It sits deliberately between silence and withdrawal — a middle mechanism the scholarly record uses to signal risk without pre-judging guilt.

    What is an editorial expression of concern?

    An editorial expression of concern is a public, freely accessible notice — linked bidirectionally to the article it concerns — that tells readers a paper’s integrity is in question. Wikipedia’s entry on the topic describes it simply as “a notice issued by a publisher against a particular publication, warning that it may contain errors or be otherwise untrustworthy,” citing Morris, Barnas, LaFrenier and Reich’s Handbook of Journal Publishing (Cambridge University Press, 2013).

    Crucially, an expression of concern does not itself amend the scientific record. The original article remains published, unaltered, alongside the notice. It is a flag, not a verdict — and that distinction is precisely why journals reach for it before they reach for a retraction.

    Expression of concern vs retraction: what’s the difference?

    A retraction is a formal withdrawal: editors have concluded, on clear grounds, that a paper’s findings are unreliable because of fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, an invalidating honest error, or an unresolved ethical breach. COPE’s Retraction Guidelines (Version 3, 2025) set out the timing, content and evidentiary bar for that step. A retraction changes how the article is labelled in perpetuity; it does not usually remove the text, but it marks it as withdrawn from the reliable literature.

    An expression of concern makes no such finding. It is an interim or, occasionally, a terminal notice used precisely because the evidence does not yet support — or may never support — a definitive retraction decision. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), in its December 2019 recommendations on “Scientific Misconduct, Expressions of Concern, and Retraction,” acknowledges that a publisher may issue an expression of concern while a misconduct investigation is ongoing, and pending its outcome, rather than waiting in silence or retracting prematurely.

    Feature Expression of concern Retraction
    Evidence threshold Inconclusive or investigation ongoing Clear grounds established
    Effect on the article Article stands, flagged with a linked notice Article marked withdrawn from the record
    Typical trigger Credible allegation, pending institutional inquiry Confirmed fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or invalidating error
    Finality Interim — or occasionally the final outcome if no further update is expected Final

    When does COPE say editors should issue one?

    COPE’s dedicated guideline on expressions of concern gives editors concrete criteria. It states that editors should consider issuing an expression of concern if significant and credible concerns have been raised but the evidence is unclear as to whether the work, or parts of it, are potentially unreliable — whether from error, incorrect analysis, or research-integrity concerns affecting the main findings.

    Other qualifying scenarios include:

    • An institutional, funding, or other formal oversight investigation is ongoing and may lead to corrections based on the work’s reliability.
    • Authors have been asked for additional information to address concerns, and it is not immediately available.
    • There is an unresolved breach of journal or publisher policy — for example, data that were available at publication but later withheld.
    • A resolution is not expected for some time, typically several months.

    COPE is equally clear about when an expression of concern is not appropriate: if the editor can quickly reach a decision, if resolution is only weeks away, if the main findings remain reliable, or if the sole concern relates to authorship rather than the underlying findings. Publishing a notice that will be superseded within weeks risks confusing readers rather than informing them.

    Corrigendum vs erratum vs expression of concern: where each notice fits

    Expressions of concern sit alongside — but are distinct from — the more routine correction notices journals issue. In standard publishing practice, a corrigendum is a correction initiated by the authors themselves to fix an error they introduced (a wrong affiliation, a miscalculated value, an omitted co-author), while an erratum corrects a mistake introduced by the publisher during production or typesetting — the classic corrigendum vs erratum distinction. Neither implies a reliability concern about the underlying findings; both simply amend the published record.

    The National Information Standards Organization’s 2024 recommended practice, NISO RP-45-2024, “Communication of Retractions, Removals, and Expressions of Concern (CREC),” formalises how publishers and indexers should structure and disseminate these various post-publication notices so that the scholarly record — and the systems that index it — stay consistent across platforms.

    Notice type Who initiates it What it signals Effect on the record
    Corrigendum Authors Author-side error in an otherwise sound paper Text amended; original findings stand
    Erratum Publisher Production or typesetting error Text amended; original findings stand
    Expression of concern Editors/publisher Credible, unresolved doubt about reliability Article stands, flagged pending outcome
    Retraction Editors/publisher Confirmed unreliability or misconduct Article marked withdrawn

    Related questionable research practices — undisclosed image manipulation, salami-slicing, or selective reporting — often surface first through post-publication scrutiny on platforms such as PubPeer, which can prompt an editor to move from silence toward one of these four notice types.

    Frequently asked questions

    What is an editorial expression of concern?

    An editorial expression of concern is a notice issued by editors or a publisher to draw attention to potential problems in a published paper, without itself constituting a retraction or a correction. It flags unresolved doubt while the article remains part of the published record.

    What is an example of when an expression of concern applies?

    COPE gives the example of an editor receiving inconclusive evidence of misconduct, or learning that findings appear unreliable but the authors’ institution declines to investigate. In both cases, the concern is credible but not yet provable, so a flag — not a withdrawal — is the appropriate response.

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

    An expression of concern is a provisional flag issued when evidence is incomplete; a retraction is a final, formal withdrawal issued once editors have established clear grounds — fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or an invalidating error. One pauses judgement; the other delivers it.

    Is Retraction Watch a credible source for tracking these notices?

    Retraction Watch is widely cited by researchers, journalists and integrity officers as a tracking resource and maintains a large public database of retractions. It is a secondary aggregator, not a standards body — for authoritative process guidance, COPE, ICMJE and NISO remain the primary reference sources.

    Implications for institutions, publishers and researchers

    For research administrators and institutional integrity officers, an expression of concern on a faculty member’s paper is not proof of misconduct — but it is a signal that warrants tracking, particularly where funding, promotion, or REF-style assessment exercises depend on the work’s standing. Institutions should distinguish, in their own case-management records, between papers carrying a corrigendum or erratum (routine) and those carrying an expression of concern (an active, unresolved integrity question).

    For publishers and journal editors, COPE’s criteria function as a due-process safeguard: they prevent both premature retraction, which can unfairly damage careers, and prolonged silence, which leaves readers citing potentially unreliable findings unwarned. NISO RP-45-2024’s structured communication requirements push this further, aiming to make expressions of concern discoverable wherever an article is indexed, not just on the publisher’s own site.

    As post-publication scrutiny — via PubPeer, institutional audits, and journal-side data checks — continues to intensify, expressions of concern are likely to become a more visible, more standardised fixture of the published record, sitting permanently between the routine correction and the definitive retraction.

  • Retraction in Academic Publishing: A Terminology Guide for Editors and Research Offices

    Editors, research-integrity officers and authors routinely use “retraction”, “correction”, “expression of concern” and “redaction” as if they were interchangeable. They are not. Retraction in academic publishing is a formal, permanent withdrawal of a paper’s standing, reserved for findings that can no longer be trusted — a different remedy, with a different evidence threshold, from a correction, an expression of concern, or a redaction. Conflating the terms slows investigations and can misstate a case’s severity to funders, tenure committees, and the public record.

    The four publishing remedies at a glance

    The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), whose retraction guidelines were updated to version 3 in August 2025, and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) both treat these as distinct editorial tools, not synonyms. The table below sets out the working distinctions research offices and editorial staff need.

    Remedy What it means Typical trigger Who issues it Effect on the original article
    Retraction Formal, permanent withdrawal from the reliable literature Fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, unethical research, compromised peer review Editor, sometimes jointly with the publisher Article stays online, clearly watermarked “RETRACTED”
    Correction (corrigendum/erratum) Fixes a specific, non-fatal error Author error (corrigendum) or production error (erratum) Authors (corrigendum) or journal (erratum) Article stands; correction notice is linked to it
    Expression of concern Interim public notice pending an unresolved inquiry Inconclusive evidence or an ongoing institutional investigation Editor Article stands, flagged as under review
    Redaction Removal or masking of specific sensitive content only Legal, privacy, or confidentiality requirement (e.g. identifiable patient data) Publisher, usually on legal or data-protection advice Only the redacted portion is withheld; the rest of the record stands

    Retraction: when findings cannot be trusted

    Per COPE’s 2025 retraction guidelines, “the purpose of retraction is to correct the literature and ensure its integrity, not to punish the authors.” A retraction disavows the paper’s conclusions; it does not usually remove the text itself, which stays accessible but permanently marked as unreliable.

    COPE and ICMJE both point to a similar set of grounds for retraction:

    • Unreliable findings — from honest error (miscalculation, flawed methodology) or from misconduct (fabricated or falsified data)
    • Plagiarism — appropriating another party’s words, data, or ideas without credit
    • Redundant or duplicate publication — the same findings published elsewhere without cross-reference or permission
    • Unethical research — studies that breached human- or animal-subject ethics requirements
    • Compromised peer review or undisclosed conflicts of interest that could have biased the editorial decision

    A retraction can be initiated by authors, editors, or the publisher, but COPE is explicit that the editor holds final decision authority, consistent with editorial independence — the publisher’s role is to support the investigation and help issue the notice, not to make the call.

    Correction, corrigendum and erratum: fixing the record without withdrawing it

    A correction is the appropriate remedy when an error is real but does not undermine the paper’s overall conclusions — a mislabelled figure, an incorrect affiliation, a transposed digit in a table. Two related terms are often used loosely but have a real distinction:

    • Corrigendum — a correction of an error introduced by the authors themselves
    • Erratum — a correction of an error introduced by the journal during production

    Both are published as a linked notice attached to the original article, which otherwise remains part of the reliable record. A correction is not a lesser form of retraction — it is a separate remedy for a separate class of problem, and treating minor corrections as reputational events discourages the self-correction that COPE and ICMJE actively encourage.

    Expression of concern: the interim signal

    An expression of concern (EOC) is not a verdict. COPE’s guidance describes it as the appropriate step when an editor is uncertain about a publication’s reliability because of insufficient information, delays in institutional response, or an investigation that will not conclude quickly. Rather than wait — and risk the paper being cited or acted on in the meantime — the editor publishes a notice flagging the concern while the inquiry continues.

    An EOC typically resolves in one of three ways: retraction, correction, or a formal confirmation that the concerns did not hold up. Editorial and research-integrity teams should track EOCs as open cases, not closed ones, and revisit them on a defined schedule rather than leaving them unresolved indefinitely.

    Redaction vs retraction: a different kind of removal

    This is where terminology confusion is most common — and most consequential. Redaction is not a recognised category within the COPE/ICMJE retraction-correction-EOC taxonomy. It is a records-management and legal term for the selective removal or masking of specific sensitive content — identifiable patient information, confidential commercial data, material under a court order — while the rest of the document remains intact and in force.

    Retraction, by contrast, withdraws the paper’s standing as a whole. A journal might redact one identifying detail from a case report to comply with data-protection law without touching the paper’s scientific conclusions; that is not equivalent to, and should never be reported internally as, a retraction. Research offices logging cases for funder reporting should keep these as separate fields — collapsing them into one “removed” category misrepresents both the scale and the cause of the action.

    Answer-first questions editors ask

    What does it mean if a publication is retracted?

    A retracted publication has been formally withdrawn from the reliable scholarly record by its editor, usually because of unreliable data, misconduct, or a serious ethical breach. The article typically remains online, watermarked “RETRACTED”, so the record stays transparent rather than being erased.

    What is the purpose of retractions in academic publishing?

    Retraction exists to correct the literature and protect its integrity, not to punish authors, per COPE’s own guidelines. It warns future readers, citing authors, and clinicians not to rely on the paper’s findings or conclusions, limiting downstream harm from erroneous or fraudulent results.

    Do retracted studies still get cited?

    Yes — research tracked via PubMed Central and the Retraction Watch database shows retracted papers continue to be cited after retraction, sometimes for years, often because citing authors are unaware of the notice. This is why prompt, linked, machine-readable retraction notices matter so much for discovery.

    Can a retracted paper be published again?

    A substantially revised version can sometimes be resubmitted if the authors have genuinely corrected the underlying problem, but this must be done transparently, with the editor informed of the paper’s history. It is never appropriate to resubmit a corrected version without disclosing the prior retraction.

    What this means for editors and research offices

    For journals, precise terminology is a workflow issue as much as an editorial-ethics one: COPE’s flowcharts, ICMJE’s recommendations, and most editorial-management systems expect cases to be tagged with the correct remedy from the outset, because that tag drives downstream indexing signals sent to CrossRef, PubMed, and DOI registries.

    For research offices, the stakes are similar. Case files, funder disclosures, and research-administration compliance reports should mirror the same four-way distinction rather than defaulting to informal language like “the paper was pulled.” Where a case originates in a dispute over who contributed what to a flawed paper, structured contributor statements — the kind increasingly requested under authorship policies — can help institutions establish individual accountability before deciding whether the remedy is a correction or a full retraction. Internal glossaries and training materials can also be cross-referenced against a maintained dictionary of research-administration terminology rather than drafted informally office by office.

    The rise of paper-mill detection tools has also pushed COPE to add explicit guidance on batch retractions — cases where dozens or hundreds of articles from the same source are retracted together for the same systemic reason. That volume makes definitional discipline more urgent: a research office tracking hundreds of cases needs the four categories kept clean to report accurately to funders and institutional leadership.

    Looking ahead

    As journals face more paper-mill-driven batch retractions and more AI-assisted-writing disclosures, the boundary between “correction” and “retraction” will keep being tested in ways COPE’s earlier guidelines did not originally anticipate. Editors and research offices that maintain a precise, shared vocabulary — retraction, correction, expression of concern, and redaction as four distinct tools rather than one blurred category — will be better placed to report consistently, protect the record, and respond quickly when the next systemic case emerges.