I'm seeking advice on how my journal should publish an update to an author requested retraction. In a past issue, our editorial team accepted an author requested retraction; the authors cited errors in data reported in various figures. We have since learned of other errors in the paper and its figures, and we would like to now publish an update that provides more detailed and specific information than that provided in the original retraction.
Questions
(1) What form should this update take to ensure that it is properly indexed and recognized?
(2) Should it be published as an ‘update’, as a ‘corrigendum’ or as a new version of the retraction?
One view from the Forum was that as the article has already been retracted, is there any point in further updating the information. Is it worth the effort? However, others noted that it is important that the scientific record is correct, so the notice of retraction needs to be updated. It is very important that retraction is accompanied by a detailed explanation of why the article is being retracted. Retraction does not remove the paper from the literature, so it is important to be explicit about the problems with the paper, as parts of the paper may still be valid. To not update the retraction notice could be misleading for readers.
The Forum also suggested the editor might like to write an editorial on why papers are retracted.
The publication of a retraction statement resulted in the discovery of other problems with not only the original paper (which was retracted at the authors' request), but also with several additional articles published in our journal and other publications by the same laboratory. In short, the journal will soon publish detailed retraction statements of those articles, as well as an “update” of the original retraction statement that provides more detailed information related to the problems in the original paper (and is properly indexed and versioned with the original retraction statement). The editor is not aware of any other publications that have published updates of retractions, but given the extenuating circumstances involving the additional problems and articles, the Subcommittee on Ethical Scientific Publications of the journal feels that they owe it to the readers of the journal to clarify all of the problems with the data reported in the original paper (as well as in the other papers).