A journal has received comments linked to a research paper that later has been retracted. This has led to a debate over whether there should be some notification beyond the link to the actual retracted paper.
Questions for COPE Council
- Should the comments themselves be retracted?
- What does COPE recommend?
- What do other journals do?
Advice on this case is from a small number of COPE Council Members. Most cases on the COPE website are presented to the COPE Forum where advice is offered by a wider group of COPE Members and COPE Council Members. Advice on individual cases is not formal COPE guidance.
The COPE retraction guidelines state that: 'Articles that relied on subsequently retracted articles in reaching their own conclusions, such as systematic reviews or meta-analyses, may themselves need to be corrected or retracted.'
However, the appropriate response may depend on the type of commentary in question. There are usually two types of commentary: one that comments on and interprets a particular paper, and one that is about a wider topic and is more like a mini review. They may accompany a paper or might be standalone and in a different issue. How the commentary relates to the published paper (eg, extent or message, sentiment, purpose) would matter. If the commentary is only about the now retracted paper and is mostly positive about its contribution to the field and its practical implications, it would need to be retracted. But even if the commentary specifically focuses on the paper for the purpose of criticising it or presenting a different interpretation or explanation, it probably also needs to be retracted because its subject is no longer part of the literature. If not retracted, readers of the commentary/editorial might believe that the conclusions about that work are still valid. Alternatively, if the commentary criticises relevant things that helped lead to the retraction, an editorial note could be added rather than a retraction.
Conversely, if the linked article had other still valid and significant content, and the retracted article was only referred to in passing, then a correction or expression of concern/editorial note might be sufficient. If the commentary mentions the retracted paper among many others, for example, and there is a wider message that is still valid, a correction could be issued, removing the affected lines and reference. The commentary author could be given a deadline to correct it (explaining that an editorial note would be added if the deadline is missed, to alert readers about the retracted reference). The same approach could be used for editorials and published letters that mention the paper in passing but have a wider, still valid message.
This issue was discussed by Retraction Watch in 2016, in a post in which members of the board of the Center For Scientific Integrity (RW's parent organisation) gave detailed advice.