Talk:Retraction in academic publishing

message: The current article might be interpreted to mean that any correction of an error is a retraction but this is not current usage.  
The NYT has a nice article on the differences between retractions and corrections. 
Here is what Merriam-Webster says on retraction and retract:
: Main Entry: re·trac·tion
: Pronunciation: ri-'trak-sh&n
: Function: noun
: 1 : an act of recanting; specifically : a statement made by one retracting
: 2 : an act of retracting : the state of being retracted
: 3 : the ability to retract 	
and
: Main Entry: re·tract
: Pronunciation: ri-'trakt
: Function: verb
: Etymology: Middle English, from Latin retractus, past participle of retrahere -- more at RETREAT
: transitive senses
: 1 : to draw back or in <cats retract their claws>
: 2 a : TAKE BACK, WITHDRAW <retract a confession> b : DISAVOW
: intransitive senses
: 1 : to draw or pull back
: 2 : to recant or disavow something
A retraction is a withdrawal of the main point of an article (or statement).  While a correction may harm the credibility of the article or statement it does not withdraw the underlying point article.  
Example: if we start with this statement:
: "Bonnie and Clyde were killed in a shoot out with police today.  They were both wearing brown suits at the time of their death".
In this example statement the death of notorious criminals is the main point being made.  The cloths worn by Bonnie and Clyde at the time of death, while perhaps interesting, is not the key point of the statement.
and then consider the following two corrections:
: (1) "It was previously reported that Bonnie and Clyde were wearing brown suits at the time of their death.  This is incorrect.  They were wearing denim jeans and T-shirts at the time of their death"
: (2) "It was previously reported thta Bonnie and Clyde were killed in a shoot out with police.  This is incorrect, they are still at large and believed to be alive".
In the first correction above a factual inaccuracy is corrected but the key point of the original statement is unchanged.  This is generally viewed as a correction.  In the second correction above the underlying point of the original statement is changed.  This is the generally accepted meaning of a retraction.
While all retractions are corrections, not all corrections are retractions. Funkyj 19:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  definition of "retraction" is too loose 

message: How do we want to handle the notation regarding the recent MMR vaccine controversy, which recently saw a retraction published in The Lancet medical journal for its prior findings and the vaccine's alleged link to autism in children? I suppose it would be a brief explanation, a link to the main article and a source, but I'm not sure how one should state it. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 02:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: MMR-autism link retraction

message: Is this going to be an exhaustive list of retractions? Or just some selected examples? The first seems almost unattainable, the second would need clear criteria for what to include and what not. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said, I agree the latter should take precedence and the former be extended as good resources become available to form: List of Notable Retracted Articles. The "for Political Reasons" section could perhaps form the basis of "historical examples" if good citations could be provided. 12.19.144.98 (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

text: *Good comment Guillaume2303. I will begin deletion. Sietecolores (talk) 12:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, such self-selection risks being OR, or carrying suspicions of animosity against certain individuals. Listing Galileo from 1663 along with names and dates from the 2010s seems a bit silly to me. The content is also unsatisfactory in parts: "The most common reasons for the retraction of articles are scientific misconduct" is a very bold claim to make without references. I have tagged it. There is also no suggestion in the Scientific misconduct definitions that "serious errors" is classed as misconduct. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  examples 

message: This page (except for the vaguely worded lead) seems to be all about retractions of scientific articles. Given this discrepancy and the vague title of the current article, I think it should be moved to retractions in science or something like that, and the lead reworded--perhaps it can be replaced with the current article's "retraction in science" section. Everymorning (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it should.  Or, to "Retraction (science)", or to a descriptive title as you suggest, but perhaps not limited to science, as in for example, "Retractions in academic publishing". See section #Unfocused, below. Mathglot (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Done: uncontroversial move. Boud (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this page be moved? 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Retraction (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 05:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: — Assignment last updated by Kitterbitter160 (talk) 00:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: BIOL4410 senior seminar