Author's reply

Shunhai Qu and Viroj Wiwanitkit raise several points in their letter that serve to further the discussion around retractions. As noted, the retraction of published literature is a complex phenomenon and one that is influenced by a range of factors and a variety of actors. My paper presented an initial exploratory analysis based on a classification of published retraction notices and did not attempt to identify the various elements underlying the reasons for retraction 1. Expansion of this analysis to illustrate how the factors that Qu and Wiwanitkit highlighted influence the frequency of and reasons for retraction would be welcome.

Although I looked at plagiarism and duplicate publication solely within literature that had been retracted, I mentioned the value of considering differences in the quantity of literature published by authors from different countries and the number of authors with publications that have been retracted. Considering the number of medical scientists active in various countries would offer yet another perspective on this issue. Any of these explorations has the potential to add to the understanding of retraction and misconduct. Far from definitive, I hope my analysis can serve as an early contribution to a larger investigation of retraction, plagiarism, and duplicate publication across countries worldwide, and I encourage Qu, Wiwanitkit, and other researchers to continue this exploration to build a more comprehensive picture.

Finally, I appreciate the mention of a role for librarians in the fight against misconduct. Librarians strive to provide accurate, reliable, timely information—an aim that is jeopardized with every instance of misconduct that makes its way into the published literature. Librarians can and should continue to partner with scientists, researchers, journal editors, and others in addressing research misconduct.