Vanishing Act

["T Scott Plutchak" <tscott@uab.edu>]

I was very pleased to see Andrea Foster's article in the Chronicle on the
purging of articles from electronic databases since it provides the
impetus to resume the discussion that occured here briefly back in early
November following the Charleston Conference.
 
As Foster points out, there is a clear split in how different publishers
have chosen to deal with the issue of problematic articles.  Elsevier and
some others have elected to remove the article from the database entirely,
while other publishers have elected to deal with it by publishing clear
retractions and making sure that the orginal article and the retraction
are linked in such a way that the retraction cannot be missed if the
article is retrieved.
 
It is essential that the academic community come down very hard in support
of the latter approach.
 
Those of you who may have attended my presentation in Charleston would
have heard Michael Mabe, who drafted the policy that Elsevier uses,
discuss the significant dilemmas that Elsevier faces in dealing with these
issues.  There is no question in my mind that he and his colleagues are
trying to do "the right thing" -- but we are in unfamiliar terrain here
and it is not easy to discern what the right thing is.  So it is necessary
that we arrive at some consensus of appropriate policy that they and other
publishers can rely on in formulating effective procedures.
 
Daviess Menefee's message of November 6th stated that Elsevier had
developed "a strict internal policy of review" for removing articles.  
Although well-meaning, the policy, as it has been implemented, is simply
not adequate to protect the integrity of the scientific record.  It's
intent is to protect Elsevier from legal liability, and while that is
certainly important, it needs to be balanced against the broader issues of
importance to the scientific community both now and in the future.
 
The policy as implemented provides for no external review.  In the print
world, a journal may elect to disavow an article by publishing a
retraction, but both the retraction and the original article still remain
available, so the rest of the academic community has the opportunity to
make their own judgments based on the facts before them.  This element of
peer review, and the checks and balances it represents, is perhaps the
most fundamental principle of western science.  The Elsevier policy
eliminates such review.  No matter how diligent Elsevier's process may be,
the academic community should not cede responsibility for this kind of
review to a private entity.
 
An effective policy for handling retractions in electronic publications
should combine elements of the National Library of Medicine's policy on
retractions (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/errata.html)  and the
recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors
(ICMJE) concerning corrections and retractions
(http://www.icmje.org/index.html#corrections).  Specifically,
 
1. The retraction should appear on a numbered page in a prominent section
of the journal.

2. The retraction should be listed in the contents page, and include in
its heading the title of the article.

3. The retraction must be signed by one of the following:  the author, the
author's legal counsel, the author's sponsoring institution, or the editor
of the journal.

4. The text of the retraction should explain why the article is being
retracted.
 
5. In addition, the statement of retraction and the original article must
be clearly linked so that the retraction will always be apparent to anyone
who comes across the original article.

I believe that such a policy, endorsed by the appropriate international
organizations, would effectively balance the needs of publishers and the
needs of the scientific community.  My question to all of you, then, is
what is the best way to go about building such a consensus?>
 
Scott
 
T. Scott Plutchak
 
Editor, Journal of the Medical Library Association
Director, Lister Hill Library of the Health Sciences
University of Alabama at Birmingham
tscott@uab.edu