Low awareness, informal channels: How LIS researchers perceive retracted papers and its implications for research integrity

Findings indicate generally low retraction awareness and a primary reliance on informal channels. Critically, the analysis reveals several nuanced patterns: (1) Significant disciplinary differences exist in perceiving retraction causes; (2) Opinions are sharply divided on including retraction records in research evaluation, reflecting concerns about uniform responsibility attribution; (3) A considerable proportion of researchers mistakenly view retraction's impact as reversible. These attitudes are strongly associated with educational background and publication experience. In response, this paper proposes five key recommendations: establishing authoritative retraction platforms, improving journal retraction mechanisms, differentiating retraction types in evaluation, strengthening integrity education, and building a coordinated governance framework. These measures contribute to fostering a more transparent, fair, and sustainable scholarly correction ecosystem.