Retracted, De-retracted, then Re-retracted: Do “Industrialization” of the Retraction Process and the Trivialization of Publisher Error Play a Part?

Abstract

This case study, which looks at the issue of the potential mismanagement of knowledge, as an intellectual resource, details
the case of nine peer-reviewed papers that were published by a high-volume open-access biomedical journal run by a major
commercial scientific publisher. According to their retraction notices (RNs), those papers were retracted due to “significant
concerns [. . . ] raised about the compliance with ethical policies for human research and the integrity of the data reported”.
Despite initial guarantees of quality control (peer review), and additional indirect assurances of post-publication quality
control (reflected in the RNs), all nine retracted papers were de-retracted on 1 March 2024, i.e., all nine retractions were
rescinded. All RNs and publisher notes (for the de-retractions) contain identical (i.e., cloned) text. This paper reflects on
whether there was an apparent “industrialization” of the retraction and de-retraction processes. Moreover, was editorial
failure and publisher error trivialized, despite the existence of an apology in the cloned publisher notes and RNs? Concerns
of procedural mismanagement are amplified by the re-retraction of two of the nine papers, sometime around April 2024.
The journal and publisher are Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) members, so imperfect peer review and apparent
mismanagement of the retraction process – via de-retraction and re-retraction – also reflect poorly on these parties. Finally,
six of the nine papers that were de-retracted in early 2024 are still indicated as being retracted on PubMed in November 2025.