Retraction Causes

The identification of proven significant errors constitutes a fundamental cause for article retraction when such errors substantially compromise the validity of results, conclusions, or methodology presented, affecting the reliability of the scientific record and the ability of other researchers to replicate or build upon published work. These errors may include serious methodological flaws that invalidate experimental procedures, calculation errors that significantly modify numerical results, erroneous interpretations of data that lead to unfounded conclusions, or critical omissions of information that alter fundamental understanding of the study. The determination that an error is sufficiently significant to justify retraction requires evaluation by the editorial team, frequently in consultation with external experts, considering factors such as the error's impact on the work's main conclusions, the possibility of correction through erratum, and potential implications for derivative research that may have been based on erroneous results.

Plagiarism detected through specialized tools such as Turnitin, available at https://www.turnitin.com/, represents a serious violation of academic integrity that justifies immediate retraction of the affected article, regardless of whether plagiarism was identified during the review process or after official publication. This cause for retraction encompasses various forms of undue intellectual appropriation, including unauthorized textual copying of previously published material, inadequate paraphrasing that does not acknowledge original sources, reuse of ideas, concepts, or methodologies without appropriate attribution, and self-plagiarism involving republication of own material without explicit declaration of previous publication. Plagiarism detection may occur through automated analysis, reports from the academic community, or identification by expert reviewers, and in all cases requires exhaustive documentation of found similarities and verification that they constitute legitimate violations of intellectual property rights rather than legitimate coincidences or appropriate use of common material in the field.

Data fabrication represents one of the most serious forms of scientific misconduct that inevitably results in retraction, involving deliberate creation of false information, non-existent experimental results, or completely invented empirical evidence to support predetermined hypotheses or conclusions. This conduct includes image manipulation, alteration of graphs or tables to present false trends, invention of non-existent participants or study subjects, creation of statistical data without empirical support, and any other form of falsification that compromises the authenticity of scientific content. Investigation of suspected data fabrication cases requires detailed forensic analysis that may include examination of original laboratory records, verification of the existence of cited sources, statistical analysis of data patterns to identify improbable anomalies, and collaboration with authors' affiliated institutions to access supporting research documentation.

Serious ethical violations encompass a broad spectrum of inappropriate conduct that compromises the integrity of the research process or the validity of presented results, including non-compliance with informed consent protocols, conducting research without appropriate approval from institutional ethics committees, mistreatment of human or animal subjects during research, inappropriate manipulation of peer review processes, and false declaration of conflicts of interest or funding sources. These violations also include conduct such as coercion of co-authors to modify result interpretations, undue pressure on reviewers to obtain favorable evaluations, manipulation of research schedules to gain competitive advantages, and any other practice that violates fundamental principles of scientific integrity established by international organizations such as the Committee on Publication Ethics and the World Association of Medical Editors.

Publication duplication constitutes an unacceptable editorial practice involving publication of the same work or substantially similar versions in multiple journals without appropriate declaration of previous publication, artificially fragmenting a single research into multiple articles, or presenting fundamentally identical data with minor modifications to create the appearance of originality. This practice includes simultaneous publication in different languages without explicit authorization, unjustified segmentation of studies to multiply publications, reuse of identical datasets in different analyses without acknowledgment of overlap, and presentation of previously published results as new findings. Detection of publication duplication may require detailed comparative analysis between multiple works, verification of submission and publication chronologies, and evaluation of whether differences between versions justify separate publications or constitute illegitimate duplication that artificially inflates the scientific productivity record.

Retraction Process

Case investigation constitutes the initial and most critical stage of the retraction process, involving exhaustive evidence collection, detailed analysis of presented allegations, and independent verification of facts through rigorous procedures that guarantee objectivity and completeness of evaluation. This investigation includes review of all documentation related to the original publication, analysis of plagiarism detection software reports when applicable, consultation with external experts when specialized technical evaluation is required, and communication with relevant institutions to obtain additional information about involved research practices. The investigative process must follow due process principles that guarantee fair treatment of all involved parties, maintaining appropriate confidentiality during investigation to protect both accusers and accused, and carefully documenting all followed procedures to ensure transparency and reproducibility of taken decisions.

Author notification represents a fundamental step that must be carried out as soon as serious allegations that may result in retraction are identified, providing authors the opportunity to respond to accusations, present evidence in their defense, and actively participate in the investigation process. This initial communication must include detailed description of specific allegations, preliminary evidence supporting identified concerns, clear deadlines for author response, and explanation of procedures to be followed during investigation. Authors must have sufficient opportunity to provide clarifications, additional evidence, supporting documentation, or any other information that may be relevant to case evaluation. Communication during this process must maintain professional and objective tone, avoiding premature accusations while ensuring authors understand the seriousness of allegations and potential implications for their published work.

Editorial decision is based on complete evaluation of all evidence collected during investigation, considering both the severity of identified violations and potential impact on scientific record integrity, and must be made by the editor-in-chief or a designated editorial committee with appropriate authority to implement corrective measures. This decision must be based on objective and consistent criteria that consider the specific nature of violation, apparent intentionality of inappropriate conduct, scope of impact on work validity, and implications for public confidence in scientific research. Decisions must be exhaustively documented, including summary of considered evidence, detailed justification of reached conclusion, and specification of corrective measures to be implemented. When evidence is ambiguous or circumstances are complex, the decision may include consultation with professional organizations such as COPE or independent external experts.

Publication of retraction must follow international standards established by bodies such as the Committee on Publication Ethics, ensuring that notification is clear, complete, and accessible to the entire academic community that may have based their own research on retracted work. The retraction note must include clear identification of the retracted article, specific explanation of reasons justifying retraction, reference to any related institutional investigation, and statement about whether authors agreed with retraction or if it was implemented unilaterally by the editorial team. This publication must be prominently visible and permanently linked to the original article, ensuring that any future access to retracted content includes clear warning about its status. Retraction must also be appropriately indexed to ensure it appears in bibliographic searches and is included in citation metrics that may alert researchers about problems with referenced work.

Metadata updating constitutes the final step that ensures appropriate propagation of retraction information through all systems where the article has been indexed, including academic databases, institutional repositories, scientific discovery platforms, and bibliographic management services. This update includes modification of records in systems such as DOI, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and other relevant indexers to guarantee that retraction information is visible regardless of access point used by researchers. Updated metadata must include clear markers identifying the article as retracted, links to the official retraction note, and relevant dates that allow users to understand the timeline of events. This systematic metadata update is essential to maintain scientific record integrity and prevent continued use of retracted material in future research, academic citations, or practical applications that may be based on results that have been identified as problematic.