Knowledge Session #8: Retracted Corrigendum, Plagiarism, Speed: What’s an Editor to Do Within This Chaos?

INANE Conference: Wednesday PM 8/6/25

A woman presenting at a conference, standing by a projector screen displaying slides about editorial decisions on retraction and correction of articles.

Speaker: Donna Hallas, Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Pediatric Health Care

Abstract: Experienced Clinicians and Professors step into the role of Editor-in-Chief, and the world turns upside down and chaotic! Words that describe these experienced individuals, such as organized, efficient, timely, attentive to details, and possibly perfectionist, suddenly become jumbled like Scrabble tiles. Thus, the world must be re-ordered. The question becomes, how can the editorial world be reordered if words such as retracted, corrigendum, plagiarism, duplicate submissions, and one of the most compelling words, speed, suddenly take front and center in an editor’s life, creating further chaos?

These problems are discussed using the best available editorial practices for managing the problems. Exemplar cases are presented for the audience to debate whether a published article should be retracted or to publish a corrigendum, and the evidence required to support the decision. Plagiarism and/or lack of accurate documentation are major problems that have always been of concern; however, some platforms detect plagiarism. What decision represents best practices for manuscripts that are most likely plagiarized? In contrast, the rapid emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) has presented new challenges for editors in identifying possible manuscripts submitted with AI as the primary writing source. Many questions have been raised about AI without definitive evidence-based answers and one question in particular: Can editors trust a manuscript in which authors declare AI was not used in their manuscript development, and yet, the editor feels an uncertainty about the submission?

 

Highlights:

Speed! Friend or Foe?

  • Time from submission to decision
  • Time from submission to final decision
  • Some systems will uninvite peer reviewers if they do not respond in one week, before you even get a chance to contact them to remind them yourself!

Who is concerned about speed?

  • Authors- they need publications for promotion, etc. 
  • Publishers- speed is part of your metric
  • Editors- managing it all is time-consuming!

Reviewers and Speed: Ideas for Success

  • Make an established list of reviewers
  • Email reviewers personally to remind them

Retractions

  • We want to avoid them!
  • They cause chaos
  • The purpose: to correct the literature and alert readers to articles that contain such seriously flawed or erroneous content or data that their findings and conclusions cannot be relied upon

Types of articles that should be retracted

  • Plagarized
  • Published elsewhere without permission
  • Unethical research practices
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest that could bias interpretation of work or recommendations by peer reviewers
  • Sometimes you can do a correction versus a retraction if it was an honest mistake (like a missed citation).

How can you spot AI?

  • Things also appear in “threes” when AI creates them
  • Can editors trust the disclosure statement from authors?
  • If the editor feels uncertain, what should they do?
Slide showing information about 'Correction' in research publications, discussing meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and the importance of adhering to COPE guidelines.
Presentation slide discussing the difference between corrigendum and erratum in academic publishing, featuring a case study about an abbreviation error.
Presentation slide titled 'Plagiarism Case' outlining steps and considerations for identifying and addressing potential plagiarism in manuscripts.
Slide discussing challenges of AI in scholarly publishing, highlighting the rise of AI-generated articles, the need for thorough reference checks, and the requirement for authors to disclose tools used in article preparation.
Presentation slide outlining the rules of engagement for a debate session at the INANE Conference, detailing how teams will receive cases, discuss them, and participate in a voting process.

Next, exemplar cases were presented, and members of the audience were asked to voluntarily debate the pros and cons of each case and consider how these case presentations may affect the speed to decision. At each table, conference attendees participated in lively, debatable cases on these topics.

A printed document discussing case study #1, titled 'The 14-Day Review Dilemma,' highlighting the challenges faced by the new editor-in-chief of a nursing journal regarding timely manuscript reviews and author satisfaction.
The participants decided they would go to the publisher and tell them to this was an unrealistic timeline. They decided they would tell the publisher that if they still required that timeline, they would ask about obtaining funds to pay the peer reviewers, because if there was a financial incentive, they might be able to get the review done sooner. But that you can’t penalize people doing volunteer work!
Document detailing a case study about duplicate publication and unethical research practices in nursing. It describes allegations against a research team and includes points for debate regarding editorial decisions.
The participants felt that there was enough evidence for a retraction.
However, Dr. Hallas said you need to investigate first.
Page from an INANE conference guide featuring a case study titled 'The Harmful Misinformation Dilemma'. It outlines concerns regarding significant errors in an article about managing chronic lymphedema, and the ethical decision-making process for retraction or correction.
The participants felt that there was enough evidence for a retraction, but we should also publish something in the journal to warn people about how unsafe that intervention is. They would review the COPE guidelines as well for other actions to take. Dr. Hallas still recommends investigation before retraction.
A printed document outlining a case study about an AI-generated research hoax, authored by Dr. YZ, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Precise Methodology. It discusses ethical concerns regarding the use of AI in research and the potential implications of an article submitted by Dr. Wiz, suspected to be entirely fabricated.
The participants felt that an investigation needs to be done, as the person who accused the author might not have been telling the truth. However, if the investigation revealed that there were ethical violations, the editor would not only retract the article but also inform the author’s institution of the misconduct.
A printed document detailing a case study discussion at the INANE conference, titled 'The Editor's Ethical Lapse', involving potential plagiarism in a manuscript.
The participants felt the “flawed but forgivable” stance was outrageous! They chose the “gross misconduct” stance. However, this would require an investigation first to get the details straight before acting. 
The participants felt that the editor would need to be replaced.
A printed document detailing a case study titled 'The Case of the Inflammatory Article: A Journal's Ethical Dilemma', which includes character roles and a scenario description related to a controversial article submission.
The participants discussed what to do with polarizing reviews from different reviewers. In this situation, they decided the editors should have invited a third reviewer before making their decision. 
Dr. Hallas said that when she finds herself in that situation, she goes to her editorial board and asks for a third reviewer.
Page with text discussing the case study 'The Tainted Publication', detailing ethical concerns in academic publishing, including characters involved and scenario.
The participants decided to follow up with the anonymous email by speaking to the author. They would ask the author to submit their IRB approval document. If it were true that they conducted the study before IRB approval, they would retract the study.

 

Your INANE 2025 reporter is Melissa Anne DuBois, BSN, RNC-OB, PhD Student.
Content for this post was obtained from the INANE 2025 website, the conference guidebook, internet searches, speaker submitted bios, and live reporting from each session. Any errors in content are purely accidental and not intended to offend. If you notice an error you would like corrected, please contact Melissa Anne at melissadubois2 at gmail dot com and she will be happy to make corrections.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *