Retractions and Rewards in Science: An Open Question for Reviewers and Funders.

Area of Science:

• Scientific integrity and research assessment
• Publication ethics and scientific record correction

Background:

• Increased scrutiny of science reward systems and researcher assessment.
• Growing attention on retractions and correcting the scientific record.
• Emerging discussions on the impact of retractions on scientific careers.

Purpose of the Study:

• To explore the influence of retractions on grant review criteria.
• To gather perceptions on how retractions affect funding decisions.

Main Methods:

• Qualitative study with six international funding agency representatives.
• Follow-up survey of 224 US-based grant reviewers (National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, etc.).

Main Results:

• Most respondents view correcting the research record (via retractions for error or misconduct) as crucial for scientific reliability.
• Retractions and literature self-correction are not currently factors in grant review processes.
• The handling of retractions within grant reviews is an unresolved issue for funders.

Conclusions:

• While retractions are valued for scientific reliability, their impact on grant review is minimal.
• Funding agencies need to establish clear policies for addressing retractions in grant evaluations.