Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Openness in Retractions

Retractions should be open-access as per norms of publication ethics. A recent retraction in Science was placed behind closed access. This letter was submitted to Science and in response, the Letters editor has kindly noted that the mentioned retraction has now been made open access.

Openness in Retractions Author: Muaz A. Niazi*ǂ Affiliations: COMSATS Institute of IT, Islamabad, Pakistan *Correspondence to: [email protected], Note: This letter was submitted to Science. In response, the Letters Editor has since replied that the retraction is now openly accessible. Research that is limited by access to only a circle of people from well-off countries – those who are somehow able to afford to view it, severely limits not only its practical usability but also its universality. Scientists are generally viewed as the intelligentsia representing the entire human civilization and are thus expected to not only be more logical but also more ethical as compared with most of the rest of human population. Besides, we all live in just one planet and any scientific advancement made should generally be available to all stakeholders i.e. all humans. While as scientists, some of us have come to terms with closed access being a business model with our institutions paying for the access (assuming they can), I am unable to comprehend when the details of a retraction are placed behind a paid access. Considering that Science Magazine is one of the world’s leading research journals, I was therefore surprised to find the retraction (1) of an earlier article (2) being available only via a full text access. While publishers do deserve a reasonable profit margin for their efforts, I am confounded about the ethical or logical value of keeping the details of a retraction only accessible via paid access. Regarding retraction notices, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines also notes that retraction notices should be open access1. Perhaps I am missing something here so I would greatly appreciate if the knowledgeable editors at Science kindly explain the logic of placing retraction notices behind closed doors, for the benefit of all Science readers. References 1. 2. 1 T. Okada et al., Retraction. Science 345, 1254 (September 12, 2014, 2014). T. Okada et al., X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry of Asteroid Itokawa by Hayabusa. Science 312, 1338 (June 2, 2006, 2006). http://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines.pdf