Editor’s Note: Today’s post is coauthored by Chef Roohi Ghosh and Chirag Jay Patel. Chirag is a business development professional with Cactus Global.
The ongoing issues of research integrity often have us thinking about things like the lack of trust in science, the impact on a researcher’s reputation, and the immense pressure to publish that probably instigates much unethical behavior. But we don’t really consider the other tangible and intangible costs of scientific integrity.
Have we fully considered the financial implications of retractions? Institutional review boards, data monitoring committees, and ethical review panels require funding to oversee research protocols and ensure adherence to ethical standards. Furthermore, grant proposals that prioritize transparency often require additional funding for data sharing, open access fees, and detailed methodological documentation. Therefore, retractions not only result in financial losses but also undermine the investments made in promoting ethical research practices.
Moreover, retractions represent a significant loss of time and effort invested by both researchers and peer reviewers. Beyond these apparent costs, the psychological impact on researchers is profound. The pressure to publish, coupled with the reputational damage that follows a retraction can severely affect a researcher’s mental health, leading to stress and anxiety.
The scientific community is based on trust, and without trust, the credibility of not just the institution but of science itself can be put to test. It is essential to address the hidden costs of retraction and to discuss who needs to bear this cost.
The key players involved in the retraction process
The responsibilities for maintaining research integrity in the scientific process are distributed across various stakeholders, which might be at the heart of the problem. Who is primarily responsible for maintaining integrity? Is it the author who conducts the research? Is it the university the researcher is affiliated with? Is it the publisher who releases the final paper? Or is it the editorial office? Who does a retraction impact the most, and should that stakeholder be held accountable for bearing the cost of retraction?
For a researcher, a retraction can severely affect their reputation, tenure, and career trajectory. They stand to potentially lose their funding and professional standing. For the reviewer too, it reflects on the quality of the peer review conducted by them and they stand to lose credibility with journal editors (or more broadly if open peer review is practiced).
For a journal editor, on the other hand, the impact is on multiple levels. A high number of retractions can harm an editor’s performance review within the journal. Retractions also have the broader potential to affect a journal’s readership and reputation. Similarly, institutions can lose credibility and reputation due to retractions.
Should publishers invoice authors for retraction costs?
On the surface, it may seem like the author has the most to lose. After all, it is the author who was wrong or unethical and hence should bear the consequence for the retraction. Would imposing financial accountability on authors encourage them to be more careful and thorough? Would this ensure that they take extra steps to ensure the accuracy and integrity of their work? For instance, here’s one line of thought as shared by an executive at a not-for-profit research organization (who would prefer to remain anonymous),
“When researchers, through carelessness or malfeasance, impose additional costs on the system, these costs must be borne somewhere. Charging these extra costs to those who have caused them could impose a stronger disincentive to carelessness and generate an additional deterrent against malfeasance.”
However, in doing so, will we end up penalizing honest errors? Would this deter authors from reporting honest mistakes? This could undermine the self-correcting nature of science, where it is important to continuously improve and progress. Rachel Taylor, Editorial Systems Consultant, Desert Rose Editorial, LLC. agrees,
“I think publishers need to be careful to not disincentivize authors regarding coming forward about any problems with their published paper. If the fear of paying an additional cost would lead to some authors staying quiet, the scientific community at large is not being served.”
Perhaps the biggest problem with such charges would be enforcement, says David Crotty, Senior Consultant at Clarke and Esposito and Scholarly Kitchen Chef,
Why would an author guilty of malfeasance agree to pay an additional fine to a journal that has retracted their work? Given the huge number of journals in the market, being banned from one title would simply mean moving on to another journal for future papers.
It is also important to consider how placing this financial burden on authors could affect researchers from less affluent countries. The potential additional financial burden may deter them from publishing work, reducing the diversity in science that we are all working to increase.
In light of this, should publishers continue to bear the financial costs associated with retractions? Jason Roberts, Co-founder Origin Editorial notes that
“Editorial offices often face disruptions to their regular workflow and often work extra hours minus remuneration due to retractions.”
Publishers also already incur significant expenses for investigations, notifications, and ensuring transparency in the retraction process.
Here’s what a publication ethics professional from a society publisher (who prefers to remain anonymous) has to say
“There is a perception that publishers focus too much on expanding their publication output to increase the value of their portfolio. The link between volume of publications and revenue is obviously more easily drawn if the publications are open access in an APC business model.
The damage to the reputation that would follow if there was to be a perception that a publisher is on one end making it easy for poor quality papers to be published so they can cash an APC and at the other end is further increasing their revenue by charging to retract those same papers that they so easily published, is something that no serious publisher would want to expose themselves to.”
Another interesting perspective came in from Neil Blair Christensen, Sales Director, Morressier who says,
“If publishers charged for retractions because it was above average work, should authors/ funders pay lower fees for more impactful articles, or pay less for articles that go through peer review faster, or require less editing? To me, retractions are a cost of doing business, and if a publisher has so many retractions that it needs to charge for them, then it probably has bigger fish to fry with effective peer review and screening.”
While it might seem equitable to shift some of these costs to authors, it’s crucial to consider why authors may resort to unethical measures in the first place. The current academic culture’s intense pressure to publish can drive authors to engage in unethical practices, such as data fabrication or selective reporting. Imposing financial penalties for retractions may exacerbate this pressure, potentially leading to more misconduct as authors strive to avoid the costs associated with retractions.
Who is responsible for putting this pressure on authors? Is it the institutions and universities they work for? Should these institutions be held accountable instead? In a non-academic setting, if an employee makes an error, the organization is held accountable, though the employee may face penalties. Why does this same logic not apply within academia?
It’s not clear just what institutional accountability would entail. Is fining an author’s university for malfeasance a more reasonable approach? Should all of the authors at a university be put on some sort of probation for the bad behavior of one individual?
Given that accountability is shared among the author, reviewer, university, and publisher, could we devise a system to hold all four parties financially accountable? Does the funder play a role here as well? Are monetary penalties the right approach? If so, then perhaps a penalty system could be implemented, where each party pays a fine. These penalties could then be pooled into a fund managed by an advisory board. This fund could address several issues in academia, such as incentivizing peer reviewers, encouraging contributions from underrepresented countries, and supporting early-career researchers with discounted APC charges. Just a thought.
Discussion
8 Thoughts on "Should Publishers Invoice Authors for Retraction Costs?"
It seems to me that it would depend on the reason for the retraction. If it was because of fraud that is exposed in a way that the editorial team could not have discovered by due diligence on their side (eg NOT something that someone reading the published article noticed was wrong about the data, and led to an investigation), then the publisher absolutely has a claim. However, I would suggest that at least in the US, the appropriate route would be a lawsuit, maybe even in small claims court to reduce legal costs. Depending on the specifics, they might be suing the author, the research project’s PI, or even the author’s institution.
If the retraction is due to something that the editorial process should reasonably have discovered prior to publication, I think they need to eat that cost, and put it down to the tradeoff of costs of extra investment in the editorial process vs costs of an occasional retraction when they miss something they should have caught (those reports of articles that have obvious LLM text in them come to mind).
Either way I don’t think imposing a unilateral “fee” on the corresponding author (presumably that would be the one) is the right route for oh so many reasons.
Your suggestion of a lawsuit, particularly in cases of clear fraud or malfeasance, is an interesting one. This would hold individuals or institutions accountable, particularly when the publisher or editorial team couldn’t have reasonably detected the issue during the review process. But won’t pursuing legal action create additional barriers and disincentives for addressing research misconduct, potentially leading to even greater hesitancy from authors or institutions to come forward or cooperate in the retraction process? The legal approach could also disproportionately impact smaller institutions or researchers with fewer resources, creating a further imbalance in an already unequal landscape.
This lovely, provocative piece asks us to consider how to address the growing onslaught of nefarious activities in the research ecosystem over the last ten years. Accountability certainly needs a place in research, lest scholarly trust be discarded as a by-product of publications.
Discussing costs and penalties is appealing for several reasons, but I’ll focus on two. From a philosophical standpoint, the continued capitalization of knowledge will lead to an ongoing arms race to extract the most money from diminishing knowledge. These capitalistic extractions pose a severe threat to science and our knowledge economy. However, offsetting their costs with direct costs may not be the best outcome and could further tie up resources.
From a practical standpoint, any penalty will inevitably draw the legal arena closer to research and publishers. Once we step into the legal realm, there’s a need for irrefutable evidence of what has and hasn’t occurred. This legal process demands experts to discern what’s reasonable within research and the law. However, we are currently grappling with a shortage of such experts due to the lack of training and codification in how we trust science. On the other hand, other entities are not short on money or lawyers (e.g., special interest groups), as seen from the tobacco industry and others. And while you may argue that special interest groups are not paper mills, paper mills do indeed have offices, a lot of money, and legal resources.
Again, it is excellent to elevate the need for greater accountability in research. Thanks for the article.
Thank you, Leslie! I fully agree that while accountability is essential, turning research integrity into a commodity could create more problems. That’s why we avoided suggesting an author-only penalty—responsibility is shared across the board. If penalties were considered, I believe they should go to a common fund to support academic initiatives. Another idea could be a retraction register not just for authors but also institutions and publishers, which might not impose direct penalties but would carry significant reputational consequences.
Great and provocative summary from my colleagues Roohi and Jay.
In my humble view, intentional and unethical behavior should be punished and should not be seen as a “cost of doing business”.
That being said, financial/economic sanctions might not be the most suitable variables in this equation, while lack of trust/blacklisting/career progression would be more efficient and with better benefits for the whole industry in the long run.
Thanks, Pablo. I believe the key is ensuring accountability across all stakeholders, not just the author. This broader approach, I feel is important, to urge all stakeholders to develop solutions at every stage of the research process, ultimately helping to reduce integrity breaches more effectively.
Misconduct aside, authors are already mistreated enough by the publishing industry. You have to finance your own research, pay fees to a publisher (who by the way doesn’t pay reviewers), and are somewhat responsible of promoting an accepted paper (which I feel is the job of the publisher).
Now you want to add one more thing to this?
I’d rather see some other changes made in the publishing industry before seeing this suggestion being implemented.
I completely understand the frustration with the current demands placed on authors. The idea behind discussing penalties isn’t to add more burden but to explore shared accountability across all stakeholders, including publishers and institutions. Of course, broader changes in the publishing industry are also needed to address author concerns, and any new proposals should be considered carefully within that context.
