Retractions are no longer rare, running at about 10,000 journal papers a year according to RetractionWatch, a most commendable blog that takes an interest in these things. A retracted paper is one that has been removed from the scientific record after publication because something is thought to be wrong with it. That much is clear enough; less clear is who – author, editor or publisher – has responsibility for deciding that something is amiss. Just occasionally, the author will seek a retraction, but usually the editor and publisher will work together when a problem arises and then initiate the retraction – sometimes with the author’s approval, more often without, and occasionally without even the author’s knowledge.

PAGES
211 – 214
DOI
All content is freely available without charge to users or their institutions. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission of the publisher or the author. Articles published in the journal are distributed under a http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Issues
Also in this issue:
-
Agnes Horvath, Magic and the Will to Science: A Political Anthropology of Liminal Technicality
-
Gibson Burrell, Ronald Hartz, David Harvie, Geoff Lightfoot, Simon Lilley and Friends, Shaping for Mediocrity: The Cancellation of Critical Thinking at our Universities
-
Bas de Boer, How Scientific Instruments Speak: Postphenomenology and Technological Mediations in Neuroscientific Practice
-
Bjørn Lomborg, False Alarm
-
How does innovation arise in the bicycle sector? The users’ role and their betrayal in the case of the ‘gravel bike’