Retractions of journal articles exclude fraudulent or erroneous research from legitimate science and perform boundary work. Analyzing retractions from different disciplines and focusing on their apologetic aspects, we find that these apologies shift between openly addressing emotional, normative, and social themes and concealing them in a more scientific style of communication. Their boundary work remains highly ambivalent: They alternate between scientific and nonscientific forms of speaking, portray unstable patterns of control and coercion, and avoid drawing a boundary between legitimate and nonlegitimate science. In line with the hypothetical nature of scientific knowledge, retractions thus leave boundary making to the future.
AbbottA. (1995). Things of boundaries. Social Research, 62, 857-882.
2.
AmosK. A. (2014). The ethics of scholarly publishing: Exploring differences in plagiarism and duplicate publication across nations. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 102, 87-91. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.102.2.005
BennettC. (2006). Taking the sincerity out of saying sorry: Restorative justice as ritual. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 23, 127-143. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5930.2006.00331.x
5.
BennettC. (2008). The apology ritual : A philosophical theory of punishment. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
6.
BenoitW. L. (1997). Image repair discourse and crisis communication. Public Relations Review, 23, 177-186. doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(97)90023-0
7.
BraithwaiteJ.MugfordS. (1994). Conditions of successful reintegration ceremonies: Dealing with juvenile offenders. British Journal of Criminology, 34, 139-171.
8.
BrazealL. M. (2008). The image repair strategies of Terrell Owens. Public Relations Review, 34, 145-150. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2008.03.021
9.
BrodoczA. (2005). Behaupten und Bestreiten. Genese, Verstetigung und Verlust von Macht in institutionellen Ordnungen. (Assert and deny. Genesis, perpetuation and loss of power in institutional orders). In BrodoczA.MayerC. O.PfeilschifterR.WeberB. (Eds.), Institutionelle Macht: Genese—Verstetigung—Verlust (Institutional power: Genesis – perpetuation – loss) (pp. 13-36). Cologne, Germany: Böhlau.
10.
CunninghamM. (1999). Saying sorry: The politics of apology. Political Quarterly, 70, 285-293. doi:10.1111/1467-923X.00231
11.
DastonL. (2014). The naturalistic fallacy is modern. Isis, 105, 579-587. doi:10.1086/678173
12.
DerkatchC. (2012). Demarcating medicine’s boundaries: Constituting and categorizing in the journals of the American Medical Association. Technical Communication Quarterly, 21, 210-229. doi:10.1080/10572252.2012.663744
13.
DowneyS. D. (1993). The evolution of the rhetorical genre of apologia. Western Journal of Communication, 57, 42-64. doi:10.1080/10570319309374430
14.
DurkheimE. (1980). Die Regeln der soziologischen Methode [The rules of sociological method] (KönigR., Ed.). Berlin, Germany: Suhrkamp. (Original work published 1895)
15.
FanelliD. (2013). Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign. PLoS Medicine, 10(12), e1001563. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001563
16.
FangF. C.SteenR. G.CasadevallA. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 17028-17033. doi:10.1073/pnas.1212247109
17.
FariaR. (2014). Science under pressure: Problematic behaviors and social harms. Revista Crítica Penal y Poder, 7, 64-84.
18.
FariaR. (2015). Scientific misconduct: How organizational culture plays its part. Tijdschrift over Cultuur & Criminaliteit, 5, 38-54. doi:10.5553/TCC/221195072015005001003
19.
FurmanJ. L.JensenK.MurrayF. (2012). Governing knowledge in the scientific community: Exploring the role of retractions in biomedicine. Research Policy, 41, 276-290.
20.
GierynT. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48, 781-795.
21.
GierynT. F. (1994). Boundaries of science. In JasanoffS.MarkleG. E.PetersenJ. C.PinchT. (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 393-443). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22.
GierynT. F.FigertA. E. (1986). Scientists protect their cognitive authority: The status degradation ceremony of Sir Cyril Burt. In BöhmeG.StehrN. (Eds.), The knowledge society (Vol. 10, pp. 67-86, Sociology of the Sciences series). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-009-4724-5_6
GovierT.VerwoerdW. (2002). The promise and pitfalls of apology. Journal of Social Philosophy, 33, 67-82. doi:10.1111/1467-9833.00124
25.
GrieneisenM. L.ZhangM. (2012). A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature. PLoS ONE, 7(10), e44118. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0044118
26.
HarrisS.GraingerK.MullanyL. (2006). The pragmatics of political apologies. Discourse & Society, 17, 715-737. doi:10.1177/0957926506068429
27.
HarwoodN. (2005). “We do not seem to have a theory . . . the theory I present here attempts to fill this gap”: Inclusive and exclusive pronouns in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 26, 343-375. doi:10.1093/applin/ami012
28.
HearitK. M. (1995). “Mistakes were made”: Organizations, apologia, and crises of social legitimacy. Communication Studies, 46, 1-17. doi:10.1080/10510979509368435
29.
HesselmannF. (2018). Punishing crimes of the mind: Sanctions for scientific misconduct as a case for the cultural theory of punishment. Theoretical Criminology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1362480618756365
30.
HesselmannF.GrafV.SchmidtM.ReinhartM. (2017). The visibility of scientific misconduct: A review of the literature on retracted journal articles. Current Sociology, 65, 814-845. doi:10.1177/0011392116663807
HochschildA. R. (2012). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press.
33.
HoltgravesT. (1989). The form and function of remedial moves: Reported use, psychological reality and perceived effectiveness. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 8, 1-16. doi:10.1177/0261927X8900800101
34.
HuG.XuB. (2018). Retraction notices: Who authored them?Publications, 6, 1-18. doi:10.3390/publications6010002
35.
HylandK. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17, 433-454. doi:10.1093/applin/17.4.433
36.
HylandK. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1091-1112. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00035-8
37.
KallebergR. (2007). A reconstruction of the ethos of science. Journal of Classical Sociology, 7, 137-160. doi:10.1177/1468795X07078033
38.
KampfZ. (2009). Public (non-) apologies: The discourse of minimizing responsibility. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 2257-2270. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2008.11.007
39.
KaplanS.RadinJ. (2011). Bounding an emerging technology: Para-scientific media and the Drexler-Smalley debate about nanotechnology. Social Studies of Science, 41, 457-485. doi:10.1177/0306312711402722
40.
KarabagS.BerggrenC. (2012). Retraction, dishonesty and plagiarism: Analysis of a crucial issue for academic publishing, and the inadequate responses from leading journals in economics and management disciplines. Journal of Applied Economics and Business Research, 2, 172-183.
41.
KeränenL. (2005). Mapping misconduct: Demarcating legitimate science from “fraud” in the B-06 lumpectomy controversy. Argumentation and Advocacy, 42, 94-113. doi:10.1080/00028533.2005.11821644
42.
LakoffR. (2001). Nine ways of looking at apologies: The necessity for interdisciplinary theory and method in discourse analysis. In SchiffrinD.TannenD.HamiltonH. E. (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 199-214). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
43.
LamontM.FournierM. (1992). Cultivating differences: Symbolic boundaries and the making of inequality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
44.
LatourB. (1999). Pandoras’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, England: Harvard University Press.
45.
LatourB.WoolgarS. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts (2nd ed.). London, England: Sage.
46.
LazareD. (2004). On apology. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
47.
Len-Rı́osM. E.BenoitW. L. (2004). Gary Condit’s image repair strategies: Determined denial and differentiation. Public Relations Review, 30, 95-106. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2003.11.009
48.
ManningP. K. (1987). Semiotics and fieldwork. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
49.
MayringP. (2010). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen Und Techniken. Weinheim: Beltz.
50.
McKinlayA.PotterJ. (1987). Model discourse: Interpretative repertoires in scientists’ conference talk. Social Studies of Science, 17, 443-463. doi:10.1177/030631287017003003
51.
McLaughlinM. L.CodyM. J.O’HairH. D. (1983). The management of failure events: Some contextual determinants of accounting behavior. Human Communication Research, 9, 208-224. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1983.tb00695.
52.
MeierA. J. (1998). Apologies: What do we know?International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8, 215-231. doi:10.1111/j.1473-4192.1998.tb00130.x
53.
MertonR. K. (1957). Priorities in scientific discovery: A chapter in the sociology of science. American Sociological Review, 22, 635-659.
54.
MertonR. K. (1973a). The ambivalence of scientists. In StorerN. W. (Ed.), The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations (pp. 371-382). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
55.
MertonR. K. (1973b). The normative structure of science. In StorerN. W. (Ed.), The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations (pp. 267-279). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
56.
MertonR. K. (1987). Three fragments from a sociologist’s notebooks: Establishing the phenomenon, specified ignorance, and strategic research materials. Annual Review of Sociology, 13, 1-29. doi:10.1146/annurev.so.13.080187.000245
57.
MiradorJ. F. (2000). A move analysis of written feedback in higher education. RELC Journal, 31, 45-60. doi:10.1177/003368820003100103
58.
MitroffI. I. (1974). Norms and counter-norms in a select group of the Apollo Moon scientists: A case study of the ambivalence of scientists. American Sociological Review, 39, 579-595. doi:10.2307/2094423
PopperK. (1959). Logic of scientific discovery. London, England: Routledge.
61.
RennerJ. (2011). “I’m sorry for apologising”: Czech and German apologies and their perlocutionary effects. Review of International Studies, 37, 1579-1597. doi:10.1017/S0260210510001129
62.
RobinsonG. (2008). Late-modern rehabilitation: The evolution of a penal strategy. Punishment & Society, 10, 429-445. doi:10.1177/1462474508095319
63.
RundbladG. (2007). Impersonal, general, and social: The use of metonymy versus passive voice in medical discourse. Written Communication, 24, 250-277. doi:10.1177/0741088307302946
64.
SadeghiV.SamuelM. (2013). Genre analysis of the letters of appeal. Discourse Studies, 15, 229-245. doi:10.1177/1461445612471467
65.
SchmidtM. (2017). An analysis of the validity of retraction annotation in PubMed and the web of science. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1002/asi.23913
66.
ShapinS. (2008). The scientific life: A moral history of a late modern vocation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
67.
SwalesJ. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
68.
TavuchisN. (1991). Mea Culpa: A sociology of apology and reconciliation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
69.
ThompsonJ. (2008). Apology, justice, and respect: A critical defense of political apology. In GibneyM.Howard-HassmanR.CoicaudJ.-M.SteinerN. (Eds.), The age of apology: Facing up to the past (pp. 31-44). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
70.
UptonT. A.CohenM. A. (2009). An approach to corpus-based discourse analysis: The move analysis as example. Discourse Studies, 11, 585-605.
71.
WagerE.BarbourV.YentisS.KleinertS. (2009). Retractions: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Croatian Medical Journal, 50, 532-535. doi:10.3325/cmj.2009.50.532
72.
WagerE.FiackS.GrafC.RobinsonA.RowlandsI. (2009). Science journal editors’ views on publication ethics: Results of an international survey. Journal of Medical Ethics, 35, 348-353. doi:10.1136/jme.2008.028324
73.
WagerE.WilliamsP. (2011). Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988-2008. Journal of Medical Ethics, 37, 567-570.
74.
WalklateS. (2012). Who is the victim of crime? Paying homage to the work of Richard Quinney. Crime, Media, Culture, 8, 173-184. doi:10.1177/1741659012444433
75.
WareB. L.LinkugelW. A. (1973). They spoke in defense of themselves: On the generic criticism of apologia. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 59, 273-283. doi:10.1080/00335637309383176
76.
WeberM. (1918). Der Sinn der »Wertfreiheit« der soziologischen und ökonomischen Wissenschaften (The meaning of ‘Wertfreiheit’ in the sociological and economic sciences). In Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre (Collected essays on epistemology) (pp. 489-540). Tübingen, Germany: J. C. B. Mohr.
77.
WeismanR. (2009). Being and doing: The judicial use of remorse to construct character and community. Social & Legal Studies, 18, 47-69. doi:10.1177/0964663908100333
78.
WenzelM.OkimotoT. G.FeatherN. T.PlatowM. J. (2008). Retributive and restorative justice. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 375-389. doi:10.1007/s10979-007-9116-6
79.
WhartonA. S. (2009). The sociology of emotional labor. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 147-165. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115944
80.
WilliamsP.WagerE. (2013). Exploring why and how journal editors retract articles: Findings from a qualitative study. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19, 1-11. doi:10.1007/s11948-011-9292-0
81.
ZuckermanH. (1977). Deviant behaviour and social control in science. In SagarinE. (Ed.), Deviance and social change (pp. 87-138). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
