Marking retracted papers at The Webster Pendergrass Agriculture Veterinary Medicine Library

I have marked retracted papers at our 120,000-volume branch library since reading the Snodgrass and Pfeifer article [1] published in 1992. In their Academic Medicine article [2], the authors pointed out that “Researchers, clinicians, and teachers are generally familiar with the critical review necessary before accepting any study's conclusions and implications. Students may be less aware.” Because we served veterinary students, I thought it important to mark retracted papers as a service to the students. When I informed faculty of the new service, several faculty said that they needed retracted articles marked just as much as the students did. Additional incentive to mark retractions came from the Code of Ethics for Health Sciences Librarianship of the Medical Library Association, distributed in draft form in 1993 at Chicago. In the final version [3], the last statement under “Clients” spoke directly to retracted papers: “The health sciences librarian ensures that the best available information is provided to the client.”

Most of the retracted articles in our collection are in Science and Nature. If retracted papers are marked in those two journals only, it would be a cost-effective service to patrons, because those journals are so highly cited. Let us follow the advice of Snodgrass and Pfeifer: to continue the effort to reduce the problems that retracted publications cause [4]. For example: How are retractions being handled in electronic journals? Can we encourage the producers of other health science databases (CAB ABSTRACTS, AGRICOLA) to index retractions, following the NLM model [5]? Thanks to Snodgrass and Pfeifer for their original work in this area, and to Walter [6] for bringing attention to the issue once more.