Introducing the NISO Communication of Retractions, Removals and Expressions of Concern (CREC) Guidelines

Introduction Retractions are not inherently bad. They are, in fact, necessary because research and scholarship are constantly evolving, and the scholarly record must be corrected as errors are uncovered, and new information becomes available. Retraction is meant to be a mechanism for this self-correction, “alerting readers to articles that contain such seriously flawed or erroneous content or data that their findings and conclusions cannot be relied upon.”1 Despite the importance of these corrective mechanisms, research has shown that this information is often inconsistently displayed,2–5 meaning that readers may be unaware of the fact that an article has been retracted. Such retracted publications may be subsequently perpetuated through ongoing citations that reinforce their findings.6–9 This ongoing, inappropriate use of retracted publications undermines the role of retractions as a corrective mechanism. Although retraction remains a relatively rare occurrence, the number of retractions is consistently increasing and will likely continue to rise.10 The decision to retract, remove, or issue an expression of concern is complex, requiring that publishers consider the nature of the concern, the trustworthiness of the findings, and the potential impact of the work. Organizations, such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), have provided extensive guidance on when retractions are appropriate and how publishers can navigate this decision making process.1 However, a similar level of guidance has not been available when considering how to communicate these decisions, particularly across systems. Effective dissemination of retraction information is essential for a healthy scholarly communication ecosystem. In a predigital era, libraries maintained lists […]