1. Frances Arnold Retracts Her Own Science Paper
Frances Arnold is a scientist who received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2018. In May 2019, she published a paper in the scientific journal Science. However, it was later found that other people could not reproduce the same results in their follow-up experiments. [1] It also became clear that the experiment notebooks did not contain complete records or original data for the main experiments. [1]
Arnold voluntarily retracted this paper in January 2020. She stated that the error was due to a lack of sufficient supervision on her part. [1] The reaction to this announcement was largely positive. Many responses praised her integrity and transparency, though some criticized her, saying, "This is why science cannot be trusted." [1] So, what exactly is the procedure of a retraction?
2. Jeffrey Chang Retracts Three Papers After Criticism From Other Researchers
In 2006, there was another notable example. Jeffrey Chang is a researcher who studies the 3D structures of proteins. He used software he created himself to analyze the data. A mistake in the software had swapped the data columns, causing the structures to appear in the opposite shape from reality. [2]
The error came to light when researchers in Switzerland published a different structure in the journal Nature in September 2006, raising doubts about Chang’s work. [2] Chang subsequently retracted three papers from Science and reported errors in two other papers from different journals. These five papers had been cited a total of 729 times before they were retracted. [2]
Researchers in the same field largely accepted that the errors were not intentional. They praised Chang for correcting the mistakes frankly and quickly. One researcher noted that this incident was an example of how the scientific method eventually corrects errors. [2]
3. How Researchers Feel After Retracting Papers and How Others React
How do people feel when they retract their own work? A study interviewed 14 researchers who had voluntarily retracted papers due to accidental errors. [3] Many participants described the retraction as one of the most painful experiences of their professional lives. [3] However, the study also noted that in some cases, the retraction was praised by colleagues. [3]
It is important to note that these 14 researchers were from countries in Europe and North America and had retracted papers between 2010 and 2015. We cannot assume that researchers around the world feel exactly the same way. [3] Even though it is a painful experience, those who honestly correct their work are sometimes recognized by their peers. This is one reason why we should not view retractions solely as a "punishment."
4. Why Retraction Is Meant to Correct Errors, Not Punish Authors
Retracting a paper is similar to a teacher correcting a mistake on a blackboard by saying, "This part was wrong." Once corrected, everyone can learn the right answer. In the case of academic papers, the reason for the correction must be clearly stated. [4]
According to the guidelines from COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics), which sets rules for publishing, the purpose of retraction is "to correct the literature and ensure its integrity," not to punish the authors. [4] These guidelines were revised in September 2025. [4] The 2019 version of the guidelines states that causes for losing trust can include honest errors, immature mistakes, or research misconduct. [5] The notice of retraction must include the reason and specify who is retracting the paper. [5]
5. Reasons for Retraction Besides Mistakes: A 2012 Study of 2,047 Papers
Are accidental mistakes the only reason for retractions? A study in May 2012 examined the reasons for 2,047 retracted papers listed in PubMed, a database of medical and life science papers. [6] Errors were the reason in 21.3% of cases, while misconduct was the reason in 67.4%. [6] The breakdown of misconduct included fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%). [6] These figures apply to medicine and life sciences as of 2012 and do not represent current ratios across all fields.
The study also states that the proportion of retractions due to misconduct increased about 10 times from 1975 to 2012. It was the percentage that increased, not just the number of cases. The study points out that the role of misconduct has often been underestimated because retraction notices were sometimes insufficient or unclear. [6]
6. Record Retractions in 2023 and the Role of Paper Mills
In 2023, the number of research paper retractions exceeded 10,000 in a single year, setting a new record. According to an article analyzing data from Nature, most of these were from journals under Wiley’s imprint, Hindawi. More than 8,000 papers were retracted because the peer review process was compromised or the publication process was systematically manipulated. [7]
One background factor is the "paper mill," a system that organizes the creation of papers for hire. In the 2025 edition of the COPE guidelines, paper mills, fake reviewers, and citation manipulation were added as grounds for retraction. [8] For mass retractions, the guidelines ask that the notice state that "the publication process was found to be systematically manipulated." [8]
Retractions should be done as quickly as possible, without waiting for the author’s cooperation or the end of an investigation. This is because the longer the delay, the longer unreliable papers continue to be read. [8]
7. Activities for Investigating Retractions Further
If you are interested in exploring this topic further, you can try these activities. On newspaper websites, look for news about "retractions" or "withdrawals." By comparing how the reasons are written and who performed the retraction, you can see how the rule of "writing the reason" is applied in real life.
You can also visit a library and look at books or magazines that summarize science news. You might find stories about corrections or retractions there. Additionally, websites of universities and research institutions often have Japanese-language pages summarizing research ethics and responses to research misconduct.