Identifying Alternatives to Retraction of Controversial Research Findings

Although academic journals have historically prioritized dissemination of accurate information in publications, some journals have recently added explicit consideration of information hazards to editorial policies. Editors may reject or retract papers based on their perceived potential to impose societal harms, policies which have received substantial pushback. Academic journals and the scientific community face the challenge of addressing controversial findings while maintaining consistency with scientific values. Across five studies (N=1705), we examined how people view harm-based retractions and different procedures for addressing controversies. Academic researchers and lay perceivers disapproved of retractions based on information hazards, with researchers viewing such retractions as damaging to science. Lay perceivers prefer data-driven approaches (replication and adversarial collaboration), whereas researchers prefer commentaries, which they consider more practical. When presented with specific editorials outlining relevant policies, researchers were relatively more receptive to policies designed to mitigate information hazards. Researchers demonstrated a disconnect between ideal editorial policies and their implementation. We offer policy and educational recommendations for how to address information hazards and controversy in science.