Discussion Pieces

• Elizabeth M. Suelzer, Jennifer Deal, & Karen L. Hanus: Challenges in Discovering the Retracted Status of an Article
• Caitlin Bakker & Nicole Theis-Mahon: Location and Sentiment of Citations to Retracted Publications in Dental Research
• Monya Baker: How to stop the errors and retain the real: Researchers need transparency, better indexing, and a willingness to look again at the paper they intend to cite
• Julia Strand: When Science Needs Self-Correcting: Admitting scientific errors is hard. It’s also important.
• Pamela Roland: Lab Life: The Anatomy of a Retraction

Description & instructions: The workshop will be organized around the short discussion pieces submitted by participants. We will share discussion pieces on this page and host them at the Illinois Institutional repository, IDEALS, under their license.

Most discussion pieces will be 2-4 pages; aimed at a broad audience; and address any aspect of retraction.

Pieces might respond to the following questions, from your personal or professional perspective, in any order or format:

1. What do we still need to know about the retraction of scientific research and its continued reuse? Why?
2. What problems are associated with retraction in your community? Can these problems be solved? How?
3. What are the classes of retracted science? Can they be treated the same way?

This will foster our discussion amongst diverse participants - from the publishing industry (editors, technical staff, etc.), infrastructure-related groups (e.g. aggregators, databases, publisher service organizations), research (across government, academia, industry), journalism/science writing, policy/funding, research integrity groups.