Identifying Alternatives to Retraction of Controversial Research Findings

Although academic journals have historically prioritized dissemination of accurate information, some journals now consider information hazards in editorial policies. Editors may reject or retract papers based on their perceived potential to impose societal harms. Such editorial policies have received pushback from scholars seeing such policies as impediments to effective science communication. Across four experiments, we tested how both scientists and everyday people view harm-based retractions and alternatives to retraction for addressing controversy. Academic researchers and lay perceivers disapproved of retractions based on information hazards, preferring commentaries, replications, adversarial collaborations, and even inaction . We offer policy recommendations for science communication.