In this blog, we want to recognise the integrity and courage of several scientists who took the bold step of retracting or correcting their research upon discovering errors. Their commitment to scientific accuracy serves as a powerful reminder that progress in science relies not just on groundbreaking discoveries, but also on the willingness to acknowledge and amend mistakes.
Professor Frances Arnold, a Nobel Prize winning researcher from Caltech, retracted a paper in 2020 having been unable to replicate the results. After self-retracting the paper, she tweeted the following: “For my first work-related tweet of 2020, I am totally bummed to announce that we have retracted last year’s paper on enzymatic synthesis of beta-lactams. The work has not been reproducible.”
Many authors fear that retracting or correcting their research will negatively affect their reputation and career progression. However, this example shows that this is not always the case. In general, she was lauded by the scientific community for her admission.
Later that year, Professor Julia Strand of Carleton College had to correct a career-making paper when she discovered that the effect reported in the paper was just a programming bug.
“When I found the mistake, I was home alone on my laptop — working late in the evening. While I sat in the dark (crying), I briefly considered what would happen if I never told anyone. The bug was hard for me to identify; maybe no one else would ever find it. I could just go on with other research and nobody would ever know. Obviously, I decided not to go that route.”
Source: What Happens When Scientists Admit Error | Elemental
Similar to Professor Arnold’s experience, the damage to Professor Strand’s reputation was not as bad as she had expected.
“Everyone I talked to — literally everyone — said something along the lines of, ‘Yeah, it stinks, but it’s best that you found it yourself and you’re doing the right thing.’ I didn’t lose my grant. I got tenure. The editor and publisher were understanding and ultimately opted not to retract the paper but to instead publish revised version of the article, linked to from the original paper, with the results section updated to reflect the true (opposite) results.”
Source: What Happens When Scientists Admit Error | Elemental
In October 2024, Professor Brian Nicholson and his colleagues at the University of Oxford had to retract their paper when they failed to replicate the findings in another dataset. They discovered that a selection bias had been introduced during the preparation of the original dataset for analysis.
After detecting this error, the authors redid their analysis, the revised findings of which led to critical changes in clinical recommendations.1
Professor Andrew Gelman is a well-known statistician who has openly discussed errors in his work (see here and here) and has advocated for self-correction in scientific research.
“I’m a pretty careful researcher, and I can only assume that the overall rate of published papers with fatal errors is greater than my own rate of (at least) half a percent. Indeed, in some journals in recent years, I think the error rate may very well approach 50% — by which I mean that I think something like half the papers claim evidence that they don’t really have.”
Source: Retractions aren’t enough: Why science has bigger problems – Retraction Watch
Having been made aware of an error in the R code used in one of his papers, Professor Andrew Anderson, a postdoctoral researcher at the time, was faced with the daunting task of retracting his work. But, similar to all the cases discussed here, he overestimated the negative impact it would have on his professional reputation.
“I’m happy that I got to correct the record, I know some people were reading it and using it for their research and I want them to have the right information. I’m embarrassed that I made a mistake and it’s permanently there for everyone to see. I’ve lived enough to know it’s a blip on the radar, but the timing (looking for an academic job) had me terrified. That feeling has abated more as I have gotten a lot of positive comments from other scientists.”
Source: ‘I felt like a fraud’: A biologist goes public about a retraction – Retraction Watch
This may have been helped by the journal qualifying the retraction: “This retraction is to clarify the scholarly record and in no way suggests any misconduct on the part of the authors. The editors commend the authors for bringing the error to the journal’s attention and for their desire to present an accurate account of their results.”
While certainly not common, such “heroic acts” are gradually increasing, as indicated by the inclusion of a “Doing the Right Thing” section in the Retraction Watch blog, which highlights cases where authors acknowledge errors in their work. However, the number of authors who come forward does not align with the number of those who have lost confidence in some of their papers. This discrepancy was evidenced by a cross-disciplinary survey, which found that “loss-of-confidence sentiments are surprisingly common among members of the broader scientific population yet rarely become part of the public record.”2
“One of our interviewees went as far as to say that: ‘honestly, looking back, I think that 10–20% of the papers that listed me as a co-author are good candidates for retraction.’”
Source: Doing the Right Thing: A Qualitative Investigation of Retractions Due to Unintentional Error
Yet, despite authors’ misgivings about self-retracting or correcting their work, evidence suggests that it does not result in reputational damage and in some cases can improve it.3
“ … decidedly positive reactions were experienced by several interviewees who ultimately felt proud of having self-retracted a paper. Some reported receiving compliments from colleagues, in private as well as in public, including at scientific conferences. The experience of senior academics was no exception: they too were openly complimented for their honesty and, in two separate cases, had received invitations to speak at conferences to share their experience of self-retraction. One interviewee reported that the self-retraction appeared to have had a positive impact on the acceptance of later work: ‘Shortly after the retraction, I submitted another paper and, after it was reviewed, one of the remarks was literally: this researcher has recently retracted a paper, which shows that she is precise and considerate.’”
Source: Doing the Right Thing: A Qualitative Investigation of Retractions Due to Unintentional Error
Further to this, evidence shows that when a paper is retracted, it does not just affect that one paper—it also leads to fewer citations for the author’s previous work. However, “citation losses among prior work disappear when authors self-report the error”.4 In other words, self-retracting may not affect an author’s citation count.
Conclusion
The scientists discussed here prioritised accuracy and transparency over fear of professional setbacks, often enhancing their reputation in the process. A willingness to rectify mistakes fosters public trust in the scientific community at a time when misinformation and questionable research practices are increasingly prevalent. Their actions set a valuable example for future generations of researchers, showing that the pursuit of truth is far more important than personal pride or professional fear.
Sources
- Beynon H, Correcting the record to enhance patient care. BMJ Group. 2025. Available at: https://bmjgroup.com/correcting-the-record-to-enhance-patient-care/
- Rohrer JM, Tierney W, Uhlmann EL, DeBruine LM, Heyman T, Jones B, Schmukle SC, Silberzahn R, Willén RM, Carlsson R, Lucas RE. Putting the self in self-correction: Findings from the Loss-of-Confidence Project. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2021 Nov;16(6):1255-69.
- Hosseini M, Hilhorst M, de Beaufort I, Fanelli D. Doing the right thing: A qualitative investigation of retractions due to unintentional error. Science and Engineering Ethics. 2018 Feb;24:189-206.
- Lu SF, Jin GZ, Uzzi B, Jones B. The retraction penalty: Evidence from the Web of Science. Scientific Reports. 2013 Nov 6;3(1):3146.
