Methodological Article

Retraction of Scientific Articles: Integrity, Transparency, and Editorial Responsibility

Scientific integrity is one of the fundamental pillars of academic publishing. Establishing a robust editorial policy requires rigorous manuscript evaluation criteria to ensure the reliability of published findings, prevent inappropriate practices, and promote the dissemination of studies that meaningfully contribute to the advancement of scientific knowledge.

In this context, the quality of a scientific journal depends on several stages of the editorial process, which must operate in an integrated and complementary manner.

Initially, the journal's central editorial team should consist of professionals with experience in scientific research and publishing who are qualified to conduct a thorough preliminary assessment of submitted manuscripts. This initial screening helps identify studies that fall within the journal's scope and meet the minimum methodological and scientific standards required to proceed to peer review.

The Editorial Board, in turn, should include specialists with recognized expertise in their respective fields and a sound understanding of scientific publishing practices. Their involvement is essential for ensuring critical manuscript assessment, identifying methodological limitations, and contributing to the improvement of submitted studies. When identified limitations substantially compromise the validity or scientific relevance of a study, manuscript rejection may be warranted.

Peer review represents another essential component of this process. The participation of qualified, independent reviewers committed to rigorous evaluation contributes not only to the selection of manuscripts but also to improving their scientific quality. Reviewers' recommendations should inform editorial decisions, which may include acceptance, requests for revision, additional rounds of review, or rejection.

In parallel, the Editorial Office plays an important role in verifying compliance with publication requirements, including screening for potential plagiarism, assessing transparency regarding the use of artificial intelligence tools, and confirming adherence to research ethics committee approval requirements, when applicable. Issues related to authorship, conflicts of interest, and manuscript originality must also be addressed, as irregularities in these areas may undermine publication integrity.

Despite these quality-control mechanisms, no scientific journal is entirely immune to publishing inaccurate information or studies whose reliability is subsequently called into question. Under such circumstances, corrective measures may be necessary, including the publication of corrections, editorial expressions of concern, or, in more serious cases, article retractions.

Scientific Retraction: Causes and Implications

Although relatively uncommon, retraction is an important mechanism for preserving the integrity of the scientific literature. Its primary purpose is not necessarily to penalize authors but rather to correct the scientific record and alert readers to findings or information that should no longer be considered reliable.

The study entitled “Research misconduct in health and life sciences research: A systematic review of retracted literature from Brazilian institutions,” published in PLOS ONE 2019; 14(4):e214272”, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0214272, examined retractions involving publications from Brazilian institutions between 2004 and 2018.

The authors identified 65 retractions across 55 scientific journals. Experimental studies (n = 40) and review articles (n = 15) accounted for the largest proportions of the retracted publications. Plagiarism was identified as one of the leading reasons for retraction, accounting for approximately 60% of cases, including inappropriate reproduction of textual and visual content. Other reported concerns included image manipulation, duplicate publication, citation irregularities, lack of informed consent, fraud, and authorship disputes.

Importantly, research misconduct must be distinguished from unintentional errors. Data fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism constitute serious violations of scientific integrity. In contrast, honest errors may arise during study conduct, data analysis, or the reporting of results without any deliberate intention to misrepresent findings. Nevertheless, even in the absence of misconduct, errors that substantially undermine the reliability of published results may justify article retraction.

International Recommendations and COPE Guidelines

To assist journals in addressing these situations, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), an international organization dedicated to promoting integrity, transparency, and best practices in scholarly publishing, provides guidance on ethical and editorial matters.

Among its key reference documents are the COPE Retraction Guidelines, which outline the circumstances that may warrant retraction and recommend procedures for implementing such decisions.

These guidelines emphasize that editorial decisions should consider the nature and severity of identified irregularities, the reliability of published findings, and the importance of maintaining transparency in the scientific record.

In this context, distinguishing among the available post-publication corrective mechanisms is essential. Corrections are generally issued to address specific inaccuracies that do not substantially affect a study's conclusions. Editorial expressions of concern may be published when significant questions arise regarding the integrity of an article but sufficient evidence is not yet available to reach a definitive conclusion. Retraction, by contrast, is warranted when published findings or information can no longer be considered reliable or when certain ethical violations justify such action.

The complete guidelines are available on the COPE website:

https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/retraction-guidelines

Mastology's Editorial Experience

Mastology maintains editorial policies designed to promote scientific quality, transparency, and adherence to the ethical principles governing scholarly publishing. Key issues related to research integrity and authors' responsibilities are addressed in the journal's editorial policies, available at:

https://mastology.org/journal/about

A review of articles published in Mastology since 2017 identified no retractions resulting from serious irregularities. However, seven articles were found to have undergone post-publication corrections, formally classified as errata.

These corrections included two cases involving author name adjustments, two concerning the number or order of authors, one involving tables, one related to a date correction, and one addressing an article's Digital Object Identifier (DOI).

These records highlight the importance of post-publication correction mechanisms, even when the necessary amendments do not compromise the scientific validity of the studies.

The identification and transparent correction of inconsistencies should be regarded as an integral part of a journal's ongoing commitment to the quality of its published content and the reliability of the information made available to the scientific community.

Mastology's Commitment to Scientific Integrity

Through its central editorial team, Mastology reaffirms its commitment to the continuous improvement of manuscript evaluation, selection, and publication processes.

Under the current editorial leadership, we seek to strengthen quality-control mechanisms, promote greater methodological and ethical rigor, enhance transparency in editorial decision-making, and consolidate internationally recognized best practices in scientific publishing.

These initiatives form part of a broader strategy to improve the journal's quality and advance its internationalization, thereby strengthening its scientific credibility and expanding its presence in major bibliographic indexing databases.

Within this framework, the discussion of scientific article retractions is particularly relevant. Understanding their causes, criteria, and implications is essential not only for editors and reviewers but also for authors and readers.

The selection of this month's featured article, which focuses on methodological issues, reflects this institutional commitment and seeks to encourage reflection on the shared responsibility involved in producing, evaluating, and disseminating scientific knowledge.

René Aloisio da Costa Vieira

Editor-in-Chief — Mastology