The need to define the names of editors in retraction notices: a case study of 18 retraction notices

A retraction notice (RN), at least according to COPE guidance, is meant to be a document that represents transparency. With transparency comes accountability of the agents that are named in the RN. Despite this, while it is not uncommon to see authors’ names listed in RNs, names of editors who are responsible for the editorial decision of retraction may be absent. Their identification is important because editors supposedly oversee the RN’s wording and explicitly approve the issuance and publication of RNs. To gain an initial measure of the presence or absence of editors’ names in RNs, 18 RNs issued by COPE member journals were identified in PubPeer in July and August 2024. The RNs were obtained from the source (i.e., journals’ websites) and examined, noting whether the names of editors are named in RNs, or not. The agreement or disagreement of authors with the retractions and/or the RNs was also noted. Of the 18 RNs examined, all of those from Wiley journals indicated the editors’ name, whereas most other COPE member journals’ RNs did not. Authors’ agreement or disagreement was not indicated in one third of the RNs. The editor responsible for a RN might be the same or different to that when the paper was originally published, so both (where applicable) should be named in the RN. This article posits that the absence of an editor’s name in the RN is problematic from the stand-point of transparency and accountability. A larger and more systematic analysis of a larger body of RNs is warranted.