理解“诚实的错误” 惩戒“明确的学术不端”——专家谈撤稿背后的学术治理之道

Core Viewpoint - The recent initiative by the Ministry of Science and Technology in China to address academic misconduct and retraction of papers highlights the importance of retraction as a means to correct academic records rather than punish authors [1][2]. Group 1: Retraction Purpose and Perception - The core purpose of retraction is to correct academic records and ensure their integrity, rather than to penalize authors, as emphasized in the revised COPE retraction guidelines [2]. - There is a prevalent misconception in academia that retraction implies significant wrongdoing by the authors, leading to a stigma that can adversely affect their careers [2][3]. - The increase in retraction rates globally over the past decade is attributed to heightened awareness within the academic community and advancements in detection technologies, alongside issues like "paper mills" and data fabrication [3]. Group 2: Academic Community's Response - There is a pressing need to rebuild the academic community's neutral perception of retraction, as it is often viewed negatively [4]. - Retraction should be seen as a normal part of academic publishing, reflecting the responsibility of editors and publishers to maintain the integrity of scientific records [4]. - The stigma associated with retraction can hinder the development of a healthy academic ecosystem, which requires a culture of innovation and integrity [4]. Group 3: Causes and Management of Retraction - Retraction reasons can be categorized into "honest errors" and "clear academic misconduct," with the former being understandable and the latter requiring strict penalties [7]. - The recent special action against academic misconduct in China focuses on retracted papers in international journals, targeting behaviors such as plagiarism and data fabrication [7]. - The initiative reflects the government's zero-tolerance stance towards violations of research integrity, emphasizing the need for serious consequences for severe misconduct [7]. Group 4: Evolution of Academic Governance - The analysis of retraction causes over the past decade indicates a shift in academic governance from passive responses to proactive prevention [8]. - Previously, retraction reasons often revealed weaknesses in journal management, while now there is a focus on establishing proactive investigation mechanisms and enhancing third-party oversight [8]. - A robust retraction mechanism is essential for fostering a research culture that encourages innovation, tolerates failure, and upholds rigorous integrity [8].