Weaponizing Retractions: It Is Time For Ghanaian Universities To Demand Accountability And Transparency From Authors And Publishers

Recently, I published a detailed report on global academic retractions by Environmental Science and Pollution Research (ESPR) journal in Springer Nature which affected Ghanaian authors and universities, titled “Academic Fraud Scandal Deepens: Ghanaian Universities implicated in Global Journal retractions amid rising fake credentials crisis”.

This piece is a follow-up on the issue. This time, I intend to put the spotlight on a need for universities to take up a greater responsibility in protecting diligent authors from the arbitrariness of journals and publishers, while cracking the whip on unethical authors. Universities and similar academic institutions represent the frontier for scientific practice, exercising institutional control to ensure ethical academic practice.

This means that when academic institutions take a back seat and allow journals/publishers to lead the process of sanitizing academic practice, whose credibility is fast eroding in recent years, they would irrefutably be providing publishers with howitzers which may become a weapon for attacking the reputations of universities. This is because universities invariably suffer collaterally from any perceived or real academic misconduct by their staff.

It therefore makes it imperative that academic institutions take a proactive role in upholding research integrity, not merely as a reactive measure after reputational damage occurs, but as a fundamental part of safeguarding academic excellence. Universities must establish independent, transparent, and robust mechanisms for investigating allegations of misconduct, ensuring due process for their researchers while also holding them accountable to global standards.

Generally, retractions even those without any proper basis, carry with them inherent shame and reputational crisis for authors and their affiliated institutions – underscoring a need for decisions by publishers to retract to be careful, sound, and evidence-based. Here, it is important to establish that retractions by publishers are not necessarily sacrosanct and without blame. Publishers, as humans, are not immune to errors of judgment, corruption, and arbitrariness which may underlie some retraction decisions.

Quite painfully, even when retractions are arbitrary by publishers, they suffer little to no consequences – while innocent authors may live with the shame. Thus, publishers, milking this imbalance of power between them and authors, tend to be evasive toward transparency and accountability in most of their retraction decisions. Importantly, there is a real danger of publishers using retractions as a cover-up for their own negligence and incompetence. There are those who believe it could also be used as a censorship tool for dissident voices – highlighting vulnerabilities that are associated with retractions.

For example, in 2012, the below article was retracted by the Food and Chemical Toxicology Journal, citing inconclusive results and insufficient sample size as the reason, though no fraud or error was found.

Séralini, G.-E. et al. (2012). Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 50(11), 4221–4231. DOI: [10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005]

However, in 2014, the same article, without any significant changes in content and maintaining the same data, was republished as:

Séralini, G.-E. et al. (2014). Republished study: long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Environmental Sciences Europe, 26, 14. DOI: [10.1186/s12302-014-0014-5]

This case – among several others – underscores the discretionary and, at times, inconsistent nature of editorial decisions regarding retractions. It raises important concerns about the subjectivity and fallibility of the retraction process, particularly when decisions are made in the absence of clear evidence of scientific misconduct.

I argue that retractions should be guided by objective, transparent, and verifiable criteria. Each stated reason for a retraction ought to be measurable and supported by publicly available evidence, in line with rigorous, quantifiable standards – rather than being left to opaque or subjective editorial judgment. Only then can the retraction process maintain credibility, fairness, and trust across the academic ecosystem.

So, yes, there are good retractions, so too, are there bad ones! Due to this palpable probability, it is important for there to be an impartial umpire between authors and publishers, so that overbearing publishers do not weaponize retractions to trample upon the reputation of authors. Again, retraction is a good tool for sanitizing academic practice including knowledge sharing, especially for dealing with the problem of paper mill – this is the reason why the retraction tool has to be protected from abuse. Once retractions become an abusive tool, the entire scientific practice may crumble under a barrage of mistrust and accusations by the public.

Having sufficiently illustrated the vulnerabilities of retractions, let’s circle back to the role of universities (and other similar research institutions), who may suffer collaterally from retractions. Let me proceed further, using the Ghanaian case as reference. For those who may not have read my first publication on the issue, refer https://www.myjoyonline.com/academic-fraud-scandal-deepens-ghanaian-universities-implicated-in-global-journal-retractions-amid-rising-fake-credentials-crisis/

In the course of my investigations to establish actual academic misconduct on the part of the authors, it became difficult to do so. This is mainly because the retraction notices by SpringerNature’s Environmental Science and Pollution Research journal (ESPR), lacked clarity and appeared to be a rhyming theme for all the articles that were retracted – citing the same reasons for each article. In this case, the journal failed to provide publicly available and verifiable evidence for each claim – raising concerns about whether there could be more than meets the eye in the publisher’s decision. To make matters worse, the journal failed to provide responses to my questionnaire during my investigations – making the journal’s claims against the authors a one-side story. This opacity clearly undermines the credibility of the retractions – lending credence to a potential weaponization of an otherwise important tool. This is not to say that the retractions per se were improper, but to emphasize its lack of transparency.

When I reached out to the authors, they vehemently denied the accusations by the journals, amidst threats of legal action. One the authors, among other accusations, accused the publishers of refusing to respond to their rebuttals – suggesting that the decisions to retract were prejudicial and premeditated. I cannot independently verify the claims of the author. Thus, the claims have been sent to the publisher or editorial team of ESPR for comments, which I have not received any as at the time of preparing this piece. Notwithstanding, while investigating this issue, I found the conduct of the corresponding author to be quite intriguing. He frequently issued threats of lawsuit against me after I reached out to him for comments, for what he called “defamation”. Despite my balanced report on the matter, he went on to issue threats against my institution, the Hans-Rothenberg-Institute, University of Hohenheim – demanding a retraction and apology. Portions of his threat read:

“If these false allegations are not retracted and a public apology issued, we will have no choice but to pursue legal action for defamation of character with severe financial damages. Please be advised that if this issue is not resolved promptly, both SULEMANA ISSIFU and Hans Ruthenberg Institute (490e) in University of Hohenheim will be held liable for the reputational harm caused.”

I would like to take this opportunity to emphasize that my report is written without ill intent, malice, or personal vendetta. In my view, the publications are fair, balanced, and grounded in journalistic and academic integrity. I therefore categorically deny any allegations of defamation. On the contrary, I see this as an opportunity to contribute constructively to an ongoing and critical conversation that has long challenged the scientific community.

However, a co-author of the impugned articles, Dr. Isaac Adjei Mensah, made the following statement in his clarification note to me:

“The retraction of these papers, based on the reasons outlined by the journal, seems unjustified. The authors followed all the necessary steps to ensure the quality and relevance of their research, and they adhered to the ethical guidelines that govern academic publishing. According to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), retractions should only be made in cases of clear evidence of misconduct. In this case, no such evidence has been presented. The authors adhered to ethical guidelines and were ready to provide strong rebuttals to the journal's accusations. Despite their efforts to resolve the issue with the journal, the retractions were made raising concerns about the fairness and transparency of the journal’s editorial processes.”

It is worth reporting that the ESPR has been removed from the Clarivate Impact Factor since June, 2024 for a variety of alleged publication misconduct. Considering the sheer number of retractions, there is a strong likelihood that due diligence was not thoroughly exercised, raising the possibility that some legitimate and scientifically sound articles may have been unfairly swept up in the journal’s broader attempt to purge its records and restore its credibility.

From their response (portions reproduced above), the authors unequivocally dispute the claims by the publishers – requiring a further impartial inquiry. Here, it has become readily apparent that because the publisher is acting as a judge in its own cause, the retractions occurred, nonetheless – against a well-established principle of impartiality in adjudication.

Under this circumstance and similar others, academic institutions must demand more from journals and publishers – rather than acting like lame ducks or passive actors. For instance, the accusation of compromised peer review process demand just more than the publisher’s say so, as it bothers on a serious academic misconduct. What is the nature of the compromise? Did the authors compromise the process? Why haven’t the universities – including Ghana Communication Technology University (GCTU), Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), University of Mines and Technology (UMaT), Akenten Appiah-Menka University of Skills Training and Entrepreneurial Development (AAMUSTED) Tamale Technical University, and S.D. Dombo University of Business and Integrated Development Studies who are collaterally implicated – publicly reacted to the issue and demanding more from the publisher?

The seeming reticence of the affected institutions is quite concerning and curious – while it may be revealing the lack of a robust institutional oversight system. I propose that universities, leveraging their institutional weight, should do more for authors who are unfairly treated by demanding strict proof from publishers and apologies where necessary. Universities should move toward blacklisting journals who act in a murky way – including potentially weaponizing retractions. It is important to stress that journals should, at best, be gatekeepers and conveyor belts for the dissemination of sound scientific knowledge – but should not be allowed to take advantage of their role to manipulate authors and institutions. They too, must be held accountable for their actions.

In my opinion, publishers should be required to refund publication fees to authors when articles are retracted due to editorial negligence. In the case of closed-access journals, any payments made by readers or institutions to access the now-retracted articles should likewise be reimbursed. After all, if an article is deemed unfit for the scholarly record due to a failure in the journal’s own vetting process, it is only fair that the financial burden not fall on authors or the public.

One might reasonably argue that in the absence of consequences, some journals may be incentivized to publish substandard articles simply to collect publication fees – only to retract them years later under ambiguous or opaque conditions, all while retaining the proceeds. This troubling possibility raises questions about accountability and ethics in academic publishing. It resembles a flawed business model – one that prioritizes profit over quality, transparency, or academic responsibility. A coordinated, collective response from universities, funders, and academic consortia is urgently needed to prevent this model from taking root or spreading further.

During my interview with one of the co-authors of the retracted articles, this concern was echoed. He lamented that their papers, which were published under a closed-access model, were retracted two years after publication, and alleged that "the journal had finished milking the articles" before discarding them. Whether or not this sentiment is universally applicable, it underscores a growing frustration among authors who feel financially and reputationally exploited by an increasingly opaque and commercially driven publishing industry. Plus, authors bearing the brunt for editorial discretion or negligence by publishers – without any institutional protection.

Another case in point is when a journal retroactively argues that an article is out of scope and proceeds to retract. How is it the fault of an author that editors give desktop pass for an article/s to move through peer review to print? Why should an author be penalized with a retraction for this? This is an example of where a university could take action on behalf of its staff. When journals/publishers suffer consequences for their negligence, they may act responsibly rather than using retraction as a cover-up for their own incompetence and negligence.

Conversely, where actual misconduct is clearly established – whether through a university’s internal processes or credible evidence presented by publishers – academic institutions must act decisively and transparently. Disciplinary measures should be taken against culpable authors, not only to uphold institutional integrity but also to serve as a deterrent and restore public confidence in scholarly research.

In conclusion, there is a real need for the academic community and relevant stakeholders to review the entire publication system to prevent abuse from both authors and publishers. The seeming imbalance of power between authors and publishers must be curtailed to prevent the latter from weaponizing retractions against the former. This is where universities must take a centre-stage, away from the peripheries!

Contact: [email protected] and [email protected]