The authors of a paper are in disagreement over whether the paper should be retracted. One group of authors (group 1) wishes to publish a correction, and another group (group 2) feel that is inadequate, and the paper should be retracted. Group 2 is concerned that one of the authors, author X, in group 1 is guilty of scientific misconduct. The remaining group 1 authors do not support this claim. The institution under whose auspices the research was conducted has carried out an investigation, and has apparently found evidence to believe that scientific misconduct has occurred. The institution has contacted the group 1 authors and has demanded that the authors retract the paper. The group 1 authors do not feel that the investigation has been properly conducted, and have declined to retract the paper. The institution now plans to contact the journal to request that the paper be retracted.
If the journal does not retract the paper, what other options are available to highlight the dispute between the authors?
Should this dispute be brought to the attention of readers, given that that case for retraction is inconclusive?
With the two institutions involved being in two different countries, this has not helped to improve communications between the two groups of researchers. It was suggested that the editor should contact the institution where the group 1 investigators are located, informing them of the dispute between the two groups of authors, and pointing out that there has been an investigation at the group 2 authors’ institution into the matter. The editor should also try to obtain the results of the investigation carried out by the group 2 authors’ institution before making any decision regarding whether to retract the paper or publish a correction. Publication of a statement of concern might be a consideration at this time, but such statements should only be published when there is very strong supporting evidence to take such action. Ideally, the two institutions need to contact one another and carry out a full investigation. Only when all the facts are available and agreed upon by both parties can the editor make a final decision.
The main institution has had two people review the case, and they agree that there are corrections that need to be published, but disagree about whether there is any misconduct. The institution is now proposing that we publish a correction, possibly with a statement from a couple of the authors to the effect that they are removing their names from the paper because they no longer feel that the conclusions are justified. We are now waiting for the institution to finalise this with the authors and then we will publish the correction.