Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 15:4 (2024) ► pp.532–556

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Correcting the scientific record

Legitimation strategies in retraction notices

ORCiD logo with link | Shenzhen University
Published online: 6 June 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.22008.lin
Abstract
The retraction of a previously published research article, often due to the discovery of fraud or scientific error, can pose considerable threat to an author’s career and reputation. This paper examines legitimation strategies in the retraction notice (RN), a document in which authors formally announce their decision to retract an article. By analyzing 300 RNs published between 2010–2021 in Q1 biomedical journals, this study finds that 76% RNs contain at least one legitimation strategy, with Mortification, Full/Partial Denial, and Corrective Action being the most frequently used. Moreover, a comparison of RNs that report fraud, misconduct, error, unreliable data/results, and other similar matters shows that fraud-related RNs have the highest incidence of legitimation strategies. Authors committing fraud often employ Mortification, Disclaimer, and Reassurance, while authors reporting scientific errors put more emphasis on Good Intention and Perseverance. This study contributes to the understanding of legitimation and image repair in scientific discourse.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Retractions and retraction notices
  • 3.Legitimation strategies in discourse
  • 4.Data and methods
    • 4.1Data collection
    • 4.2Data analysis
  • 5.Results
    • Denial
      • Full Denial
      • Partial Denial
    • Mitigation
      • Disclaimer
      • Rationalization
      • Good Intention
    • Admission
      • Corrective action
      • Reassurance
      • Mortification
    • Perseverance
  • 6.Discussion and conclusion
  • References
References (64)
References
Altman, Douglas G. 2002. ‘Poor-Quality Medical Research: What Can Journals Do?’ JAMA 287 (21): 2765–2767. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anderson, Melissa S., Emily A. Ronning, Raymond De Vries, and Brian C. Martinson. 2007. ‘The Perverse Effects of Competition on Scientists’ Work and Relationships’. Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (4): 437–461. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Archakis, Argiris. 2018. ‘The Representations of Racism in Immigrant Students’ Essays in Greece: The “Hybrid Balance” between Legitimizing and Resistance Identities’. Pragmatics 28 (1): 1–28.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Azoulay, Pierre, Alessandro Bonatti, and Joshua L. Krieger. 2017. ‘The Career Effects of Scandal: Evidence from Scientific Retractions’. Research Policy 46 (9): 1552–1569. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benoit, William. 1997. ‘Image Repair Discourse and Crisis Communication’. Public Relations Review 23 (2): 177–186. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bhatia, Aditi. 2021. ‘The Discursive Construction of Legitimacy in the Abrogation of Indian Constitution’s Article 370’. Journal of Pragmatics 1831: 132–141. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay. 1993. Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bik, Elisabeth M., Arturo Casadevall, and Ferric C. Fang. 2016. ‘The Prevalence of Inappropriate Image Duplication in Biomedical Research Publications’. MBio 7 (3): e00809–16. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brainard, Jeffrey, and Jia You. 2018. ‘What a Massive Database of Retracted Papers Reveals about Science Publishing’s “Death Penalty”’. Science. 25 October 2018. [URL]
Breeze, Ruth. 2012. ‘Legitimation in Corporate Discourse: Oil Corporations after Deepwater Horizon’. Discourse & Society 23 (1): 3–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Budd, John M., MaryEllen Sievert, and Tom R. Schultz. 1998. ‘Phenomena of Retraction: Reasons for Retraction and Citations to the Publications’. JAMA 280 (3): 296–297. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carlisle, John. 2021. ‘False Individual Patient Data and Zombie Randomised Controlled Trials Submitted to Anaesthesia’. Anaesthesia 76 (4): 472–479. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coombs, Timothy. 2007. ‘Attribution Theory as a Guide for Post-Crisis Communication Research’. Public Relations Review 33 (2): 135–139. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
COPE Council. 2019. ‘COPE Retraction Guidelines – English.’ Committee on Publication Ethics. [URL]
Davis, Mark S., Michelle Riske-Morris, and Sebastian R. Diaz. 2007. ‘Causal Factors Implicated in Research Misconduct: Evidence from ORI Case Files’. Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (4): 395–414. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davis, Philip. 2012. ‘The Persistence of Error: A Study of Retracted Articles on the Internet and in Personal Libraries’. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA 100 (3): 184–189. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1993. ‘Critical Discourse Analysis and the Marketization of Public Discourse: The Universities’. Discourse & Society 4 (2): 133–168. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fanelli, Daniele. 2013. ‘Why Growing Retractions Are (Mostly) a Good Sign’. PLOS Medicine 10 (12): e1001563. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fang, Ferric C., and Arturo Casadevall. 2011. ‘Retracted Science and the Retraction Index’. Infection and Immunity 79 (10): 3855–3859. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fang, Ferric C., R. Grant Steen, and Arturo Casadevall. 2012. ‘Misconduct Accounts for the Majority of Retracted Scientific Publications’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109 (42): 17028–17033. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fuoli, Matteo, and Carita Paradis. 2014. ‘A Model of Trust-Repair Discourse’. Journal of Pragmatics 741 (December): 52–69. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Furman, Jeffrey L., Kyle Jensen, and Fiona Murray. 2012. ‘Governing Knowledge in the Scientific Community: Exploring the Role of Retractions in Biomedicine’. Research Policy 41 (2): 276–290. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grieneisen, Michael L., and Minghua Zhang. 2012. ‘A Comprehensive Survey of Retracted Articles from the Scholarly Literature’. PLOS One 7 (10): e44118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haggan, Madeline. 2004. ‘Research Paper Titles in Literature, Linguistics and Science: Dimensions of Attraction’. Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2): 293–317. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hahn, Rüdiger, and Regina Lülfs. 2014. ‘Legitimizing Negative Aspects in GRI-Oriented Sustainability Reporting: A Qualitative Analysis of Corporate Disclosure Strategies’. Journal of Business Ethics 123 (3): 401–420. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hesselmann, Felicitas, and Martin Reinhart. 2019. ‘Science Means Never Having to Say You’re Sorry? Apologies for Scientific Misconduct’. Science Communication 41 (5): 552–579. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hesselmann, Felicitas, Verena Graf, Marion Schmidt, and Martin Reinhart. 2017. ‘The Visibility of Scientific Misconduct: A Review of the Literature on Retracted Journal Articles’. Current Sociology 65 (6): 814–845. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ho, Victor. 2021. ‘Denial in Managerial Responses: Forms, Targets and Discourse Environment’. Journal of Pragmatics 1761 (April): 124–136. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
House, Juliane, and Dániel Z. Kádár. 2021. ‘German and Japanese War Crime Apologies: A Contrastive Pragmatic Study’. Journal of Pragmatics 1771: 109–121. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hu, Guangwei, and Shaoxiong (Brian) Xu. 2020. ‘Agency and Responsibility: A Linguistic Analysis of Culpable Acts in Retraction Notices’. Lingua, September, 102954. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2005. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
ICMJE. 1988. ‘Retraction of Research Findings’. British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Ed.) 296 (6619): 400. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ioannidis, John. 2021. ‘Hundreds of Thousands of Zombie Randomised Trials Circulate among Us’. Anaesthesia 76 (4): 444–447. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kotzin, Sheldon, and Peri L. Schuyler. 1989. ‘NLM’s Practices for Handling Errata and Retractions.’ Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 77 (4): 337–42.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ledford, Heidi, and Richard Van Noorden. 2020. ‘High-Profile Coronavirus Retractions Raise Concerns about Data Oversight’. Nature 582 (7811): 160–160. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lin, Yuting. 2019. ‘Legitimating Negative Aspects in Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting: Evidence from China’. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 62 (3): 263–278. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2020. ‘Communicating Bad News in Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting: A Genre-Based Analysis of Chinese Companies’. Discourse & Communication 14 (1): 22–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2021. ‘Legitimation Strategies in Corporate Discourse: A Comparison of UK and Chinese Corporate Social Responsibility Reports’. Journal of Pragmatics 1771: 157–169. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lin, Yuting and Meilin Chen. 2022. ‘“The More Important Findings Are Sustained”: A Diachronic Perspective on the Genre of the Retraction Notice’. English for Specific Purposes 671: 18–30. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lu, Susan Feng, Ginger Zhe Jin, Brian Uzzi, and Benjamin Jones. 2013. ‘The Retraction Penalty: Evidence from the Web of Science’. Scientific Reports 3 (1): 1–5. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Merkl-Davies, Doris, and Niamh Brennan. 2007. ‘Discretionary Disclosure Strategies in Corporate Narratives: Incremental Information or Impression Management?’ Journal of Accounting Literature 261: 116–194.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Michalek, Arthur M., Alan D. Hutson, Camille P. Wicher, and Donald L. Trump. 2010. ‘The Costs and Underappreciated Consequences of Research Misconduct: A Case Study’. PLOS Medicine 7 (8): e1000318. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mongeon, Philippe, and Vincent Larivière. 2016. ‘Costly Collaborations: The Impact of Scientific Fraud on Co-Authors’ Careers’. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67 (3): 535–542. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oddo, J. 2011. ‘War Legitimation Discourse: Representing “Us” and “Them” in Four US Presidential Addresses’. Discourse & Society 22 (3): 287–314. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oransky, Ivan. 2020. ‘List of Retracted COVID-19 Papers Grows Past 70’. Retraction Watch (blog). 30 December 2020. [URL]
Page, Ruth. 2014. ‘Saying “Sorry”: Corporate Apologies Posted on Twitter’. Journal of Pragmatics 621 (February): 30–45. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Redman, Barbara K., Hossein N. Yarandi, and Jon F. Merz. 2008. ‘Empirical Developments in Retraction’. Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (11): 807–809. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Resnik, David B., and C. Neal Stewart. 2012. ‘Misconduct versus Honest Error and Scientific Disagreement’. Accountability in Research 19 (1): 56–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Resnik, David B., Elizabeth Wager, and Grace E. Kissling. 2015. ‘Retraction Policies of Top Scientific Journals Ranked by Impact Factor’. Journal of the Medical Library Association 103 (3): 136–139. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Snodgrass, G. L., and M. P. Pfeifer. 1992. ‘The Characteristics of Medical Retraction Notices.’ Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 80 (4): 328–334.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steen, R. Grant. 2011. ‘Retractions in the Medical Literature: How Many Patients Are Put at Risk by Flawed Research?’ Journal of Medical Ethics 37 (11): 688–692. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stern, Andrew M., Arturo Casadevall, R. Grant Steen, and Ferric C. Fang. 2014. ‘Financial Costs and Personal Consequences of Research Misconduct Resulting in Retracted Publications’. Edited by Peter Rodgers. ELife 31 (August): e02956. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Suchman, Mark. 1995. ‘Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches’. The Academy of Management Review 20 (3): 571–610. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A., and Judit Dobránszki. 2017. ‘Notices and Policies for Retractions, Expressions of Concern, Errata and Corrigenda: Their Importance, Content, and Context’. Science and Engineering Ethics 23 (2): 521–554. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
The Office of Research Integrity. n.d. ‘Definition of Research Misconduct | ORI – The Office of Research Integrity’. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Accessed 8 June 2021.
The Retraction Watch. (n.d.). ‘The Retraction Watch Database’. [URL] (Accessed 1 August 2020).
Van Leeuwen, Theo. 1995. The Grammar of Legitimation. London: School of Printing, School of Media.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vuong, Quan-Hoang. 2020. ‘The Limitations of Retraction Notices and the Heroic Acts of Authors Who Correct the Scholarly Record: An Analysis of Retractions of Papers Published from 1975 to 2019’. Learned Publishing 33 (2): 119–130. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wager, Elizabeth, and Peter Williams. 2011. ‘Why and How Do Journals Retract Articles? An Analysis of Medline Retractions 1988–2008’. Journal of Medical Ethics 37 (9): 567–570. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Williams, Peter, and Elizabeth Wager. 2013. ‘Exploring Why and How Journal Editors Retract Articles: Findings from a Qualitative Study’. Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (1): 1–11. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wright, Kath, and Catriona McDaid. 2011. ‘Reporting of Article Retractions in Bibliographic Databases and Online Journals’. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA 99 (2): 164–167. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A., Karen Santos‐d'Amorim & Helmar Bornemann‐Cimenti
2025. The Citation of Retracted Papers and Impact on the Integrity of the Scientific Biomedical Literature. Learned Publishing 38:2 DOI logo
Xu, Shaoxiong Brian & Guangwei Hu
2025. Assigning linguistic agency and attributive responsibility in retraction notices. Ethics & Behavior ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Yiru, Liu, Liu Yi & Yuan Zihan
2025. A comprehensive bibliometric analysis of retracted chapters based on OpenAlex database. Scientometrics 130:4 ► pp. 2425 ff. DOI logo
Xu, Shaoxiong Brian, Tingyu Liu, Hassan Nejadghanbar & Guangwei Hu
2024. Retraction handling by potential predatory journals. Accountability in Research ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue