































Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2015; 6(1):27-39 

 

 27 

 

Commentary 

 

Pay Walled Retraction Notices 

 

Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva 

P. O. Box 7, Miki-cho post office, Ikenobe 3011-2, Kagawa-ken,  

761-0799, Japan 

Email:  jaimetex@yahoo.com 

 

Abstract: A retraction of a scientific paper is made, most often due to errors or lack of publishing ethics on the 

part of authors, or, on occasion, duplicate publication by a publisher in error. The retraction notice that 

accompanies the retraction is an extremely important document, because it is the only information that provides a 

background to the public regarding the reason why the manuscript was retracted. In most cases, if the retraction 

notice is truly transparent, it will contain a few sentences that indicate the reason, and possibly also the authors’ 

responsible, among other facts. According to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), retraction notices 

should be free to view, i.e. open access. This opinion piece exposes how several publishers are selling access to 

retraction notices, including COPE members, despite, in some cases, being paying COPE members. The 

business and academic ethics of such an action is thus called into question. 

 

Key words: accountability, COPE, errors, ethics, free, literature correction, open access 

 

Retraction Notices: The Window on Retractions 

When scientists commit misconduct, fabricate or duplicate data, plagiarize the work of others, or their own (self-

plagiarism), due to malice or to honest error, or on occasion when a publisher accidentally publishes a paper in 

duplicate, the most likely outcome, if such an error is detected, is a retraction1. Greater awareness and tools to 

detect such cases have most likely been the reason for a spike in the number of journals issuing retractions
2
. 

Retraction notices thus serve not only to correct the literature, they also serve as important historical documents 

that inform, and alert, peers and the wider scientific public, that errors exist in that scientific paper, most likely as 

a result of the permeability and imperfection of the traditional peer review system3,4. 

 

Retractions (and also errata, corrigenda and expressions of concern) need to be issued quickly, openly and 

transparently, and should be informative. In most cases, the correct way to represent a retraction is with a 

prominent red, water-marked “RETRACTION” stamped across each page of the original retracted PDF file or 

HTML content online. In most cases, publishers tend to publish a PDF file as the retraction notice and this may or 

may not have an equivalent HTML text. The retraction notice is thus an important document that bridges the 

divide between what other scientists or peers can see, and what the propents of the retraction (i.e., the authors, 

the editors, and the publisher) know. The document is important, and is in fact an essential complement to the 

public academic record. The importance of the public nature of the notice becomes greater when we are dealing 

with scentists who have either received public funding, or whose paid salaries are based on tax-payers’ (i.e., 

public) funds. The same principle applies to corrections or corrigenda, or to errata, which point out other errors in 

the manuscript, but which do not necessarily result in a retraction. 

 

Retraction Notices should be Open to the Public 

mailto:jaimetex@yahoo.com


Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2015; 6(1):27-39 

 

 28 

One of the salient points regarding retraction notices specified in the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) 

retraction guidelines (COPE 2015)5 is that “ Notices of retraction should …be freely available to all readers (i.e. 

not behind access barriers or available only to subscribers).” COPE consists of, on the 13th July 2015, 10,124 

members (http://publicationethics.org/members). One would thus expect that paying COPE member journals and 

publishers would follow the rules and guidelines set out for them by COPE. Thus, should any COPE member be 

charging money for access to retraction notices, would this not be a direct violation of COPE’s code of conduct? 

Should non-COPE members adhere to the same principle? Despite this, several journals and publishers, some of 

which are COPE members, are selling the retraction (or expression of concern, errata, or corrigenda) notices (10 

cases shown in Appendix 1). 

 

Questioning Pay Walled Retraction Notices 

The morality of the business model in which information should be freely available to other scientists and the 

public, but is not, but is instead sold for a profit, is thus highly questionable. In most cases, the retraction notice is 

a PDF file, sometimes only a single page long, with information that is vital to public understanding, yet is sold for 

a few dozen US$. The ethics of the business model employed by COPE members then becomes questioned 

when we are dealing explicitly with COPE members that are issuing retraction notices behind a pay wall, even 

though COPE has explicitly indicated that the best practice is not to do so. One of the academic and corporate 

responsibilities of publishers is to be consistent with the ethics and the rules of engagement that they impose 

upon the authorship6. If, however, a publisher is unable to respect the principles by which it claims to abide by, 

then what does this say about the business model, or the ethics, of that publisher? 

 

Conclusions 

Retractions are becoming increasingly part and parcel of the publishing platform. Retraction notices serve as the 

only information available to the public informing them of the background. Thus, they should be both open, and 

free to view. This issue needs wider and more serious debate and greater enforcement by COPE of COPE 

members. Those publishers that are not COPE members need to reflect on the ethics of selling information that 

is vital to other scientists and the public. Post-publication peer review is one tool that allows scientists to identify 

such discrepancies between publisher’s stated norms, guidelines and ethics, and their actual practice, and bring 

them to the attention of the wider scientific community
7
. The porous nature of COPE’s clause 3.1 of its code of 

conduct for editors is another issue of concern related to COPE and COPE member journals and publishers
8
. 

 

Conflicts of interest: The author declares no conflicts of interest. Copyrighted images in screen-shots used 

under the fair use agreement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use. The author declares that information related 

to COPE members and the status of free vs paid in the screen-shots of the retraction notices remains valid, at 

least until the date of acceptance of this paper. 

 

References: 

1. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. 

Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2012; 109: 17028-17033. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1212247109 

2. Fanelli D. Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign. PLoS Med 2013; 10(12): e1001563. 

doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001563 

3. Teixeira da Silva JA. The importance of retractions and the need to correct the downstream literature. J 

Scientific Exploration 2015; 29(2): 353-356. 

4. Teixeira da Silva JA, Dobránszki J. Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for 

post-publication peer review. Accountability Res: Policies Quality Assurance 2015; 22(1): 22-40. DOI: 

10.1080/08989621.2014.899909 

http://publicationethics.org/members
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use


Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2015; 6(1):27-39 

 

 29 

5. COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) (2015) http://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines.pdf 

(last accessed 18 May, 2015) 

6. Teixeira da Silva JA. Responsibilities and rights of authors, peer reviewers, editors and publishers: a status 

quo inquiry and assessment. Asian Australasian J Plant Sci Biotech 2013; 7(Special Issue 1): 6-15. 

7. Teixeira da Silva JA. Debunking post-publication peer review: what it is and what it’s not. Int J Edu Infor 

Technol (Public Sci Framework) 2015; 1(2): 34-37. 

8. Teixeira da Silva JA. COPE code of conduct clause 3.1. under the microscope: a prelude to unfair rejections. 

Curr Sci 2015; 109(1): 16-17. 

 

 

http://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines.pdf


Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2015; 6(1):27-39 

 

 30 

Appendix 1 

Examples of publishers selling retraction notices (i.e., behind a pay wall), rather than making the files open 

access. The original reference, the link to the retraction notice URL, the charge as well as whether the publisher 

is a COPE member, are indicated. Prices and facts valid until July 13, 2015. 

 

Case 1 (Informa Health) 

Publisher is COPE member? No 

Journal is COPE member? Yes 

Lee DB, Suh HS, Choi YS. A comparative study of low-fluence 1,064nm Q-Switched Nd:YAG laser with or without 

chemical peeling using Jessner’s solution in melasma patients. J Cosmetic Laser Ther 2014; 16(6): 264-270. 

DOI: 10.3109/14764172.2013.864201 

Retraction: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/full/10.3109/14764172.2014.998978 

The charge to access the retraction notice: US $52.00 

 

 

 

 

http://informahealthcare.com/doi/full/10.3109/14764172.2014.998978


Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2015; 6(1):27-39 

 

 31 

Case 2 (American Physical Society) 

Publisher is COPE member? No 

Journal is COPE member? No 

Puentes G, Gerhardt I, Katzschmann F, Silberhorn C, Wrachtrup J, Lewenstein M. Observation of topological 

structures in photonic quantum walks. Phys Rev Lett 2014; 112, 120502. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.120502 

http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.120502  

Retraction: http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.019901  

The charge to access the retraction notice: US $25.00 

 

Click, then…

Pay

 

 

 

http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.120502
http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.019901


Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2015; 6(1):27-39 

 

 32 

Case 3 (Elsevier) (expression of concern) 

Publisher is COPE member? Yes 

Journal is COPE member? Yes 

Firoz BF, Henning JS, Zarzabal LA, Pollock BH. Toxic epidermal necrolysis: Five years of treatment experience 

from a burn unit. J Ame Acad Dermatol 2012; 67(4): 630-635. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2011.12.014 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190962211022808 

Expression of concern: DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2014.06.027 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190962214015886 

The charge to access the notice: US $39.95 

 

 

 

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190962211022808
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190962214015886


Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2015; 6(1):27-39 

 

 33 

Case 4 (Wiley) 

Publisher is COPE member? Yes 

Journal is COPE member? No 

Fan X, Yang Z, Parker DJ. Flow structure and particle motions in a gas-polyethylene fluidized bed. AIChE J 2007; 

67(4): 630-635. DOI: 10.1002/aic.11232 

Retraction: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aic.11232/full  

The charge to access the notice: US $38 

 

 

 

 

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aic.11232/full


Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2015; 6(1):27-39 

 

 34 

Case 5 (The Royal College of Psychiatrists) 

Publisher is COPE member? Unclear 

Journal is COPE member? Yes 

Perroud N, Dayer A, Piguet C, Nallet A, Favre S, Malafosse A, Aubry J-M. Childhood maltreatment and 

methylation of the glucocorticoid receptor gene NR3C1 in bipolar disorder. Br J Psychiatry 2014; 204(1): 30-35. 

DOI: 10.1192/bjp.bp.112.120055 

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/204/1/30#fn-2  

Retraction: DOI: 10.1192/bjp.205.2.164a 

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/205/2/164.2  

The charge to access the notice: US $30 (for one day) 

 

Click, then…

Pay

 

 

 

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/204/1/30
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/205/2/164.2


Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2015; 6(1):27-39 

 

 35 

Case 6 (Wiley) 

Publisher is COPE member? Yes 

Journal is COPE member? Yes 

Liu Z, Wang Y, Deng Z, Liu T. High-level production of 3-hydroxypropionatein Escherichia coli and 

Saccharomyces cerevisiae by introducing part of the 3-hydroxypropionate/4-hydroxybutyrate cycle from 

Metallosphaera sedula. Biotech Bioeng 2014; 111: 1906. DOI: 10.1002/bit.25275 

Retraction: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bit.25275/abstract 

The charge to access the notice: US $38 

 

 

 

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bit.25275/abstract


Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2015; 6(1):27-39 

 

 36 

Case 7 (Springer) 

Publisher is COPE member? Yes 

Journal is COPE member? Yes 

Hu J, Qiu X-J, Li R-X. Nematic ordering pattern formation in the process of self-organization of microtubules in a 

gravitational field. J Biol Phys 2007; 33(1): 97. DOI: 10.1007/s10867-007-9044-1 

Retraction: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10867-007-9044-1  

The charge to access the notice: US $39.95 

 

 

 

 

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10867-007-9044-1


Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2015; 6(1):27-39 

 

 37 

Case 8 (Wiley) 

Publisher is COPE member? Yes 

Journal is COPE member? Yes 

Iorio L. A new type of misconduct in the field of the physical sciences: The case of the pseudonyms used by I. 

Ciufolini to anonymously criticize other people's works on arXiv. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 2014; 65(11): 2375. DOI: 

10.1002/asi.23238 

Retraction (labelled as a withdrawal): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23238/abstract  

The charge to access the notice: US $38 

 

Click, then…

Pay

 

 

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23238/abstract


Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2015; 6(1):27-39 

 

 38 

Case 9 (Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. publishers) 

Publisher is COPE member? No 

Journal is COPE member? No 

Trapasso F, Aqeilan RI, Iuliano R, Visone R, Gaudio E, Ciuffini L, Alder H, Paduano F, Pierantoni GM, Soddu S, 

Croce CM, Fusco A. Targeted disruption of the murine homeodomain-interacting protein kinase-2 causes growth 

deficiency in vivo and cell cycle arrest in vitro. DNA Cell Biol 2009; 28(4): 161-167. DOI: 10.1089/dna.2008.0778 

http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/dna.2008.0778  

Retraction: DNA and Cell Biology. March 2014, 33(3), 189-189 

http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/dna.2008.0778.retract  

The charge to access the notice: US $51 (24 h access) 

 

 

 

 

http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/dna.2008.0778
http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/dna.2008.0778.retract


Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2015; 6(1):27-39 

 

 39 

Case 10 (SAGE) 

Publisher is COPE member? Yes 

Journal is COPE member? Yes 

Guo K, Jiang Y-B, Zhou Z-W, Li Y-G. Nut consumption with risk of hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus: A 

meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2013; August 8: 2047487313501120. DOI: 

10.1177/2047487313501120 

http://cpr.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/08/08/2047487313501120.abstract 

Retraction: http://cpr.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/08/08/2047487313501120/suppl/DC1  

The charge to access the notice: US $36 (24 h access) 

 

 

 

 

http://cpr.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/08/08/2047487313501120.abstract
http://cpr.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/08/08/2047487313501120/suppl/DC1



