While the phenomenon of retraction has received a lot of attention from the scientific community, what has not received enough eyeballs are retraction notices. Most journals do not provide the reasons behind retraction, and thus, the negative connotation about retraction proceeds to prevail. Apart from this, ambiguous reraction notices are hurting to scientific progress. Questions about what an ideal retraction notice should look like, what journals and authors can do to bring more transparency to retractions, and how this will help science form the main premise of this opinion chunk.  This content is available exclusively to Editage Insights members. To proceed reading, sign up for free and join over 169,000 Editage members. Have an Editage account? Sign in Related video: Mark Twain for[…]

When describing experiments involving people, researchers concentrate more on data than on individuals who are the source of those data. Science is primarily objective, not subjective—hence the infrequent use of the individual pronouns I and We, and a preference for the passive voice, in research papers. Perhaps it is this tendency to avoid referring to individuals and using such terms as cases, subjects, and even data points that led the AMA Manual of Style to include specific guidance on this topic as part of general guidance on correct and preferred usage of common words and phrases. The manual maintains [1] that the ‘use of case is dehumanizing when referring to a specific person.’ I find two trends to be relevant to this discussion. The very[…]