The phrase "article retraction" is correct and usable in written English.
It is typically used in academic and publishing contexts to refer to the formal withdrawal of a published article due to errors, ethical issues, or other significant concerns.
Example: "The journal issued an article retraction after discovering that the data had been fabricated."
Alternatives: "paper withdrawal" or "publication retraction".
Dr. Wurtman, who contacted The New York Times after the Science article retraction, said that Dr. Molliver, with Dr. Ricaurte in the audience, misled the committee by implying the damage was done by dexfenfluramine.
Interestingly, in spite of Wilmshurst's efforts to disseminate these findings and push for article retraction, he remains unsuccessful.
The deeper concern of journals is that pre-registration threatens existing "prestige" hierarchies and could reduce a journal's impact factor – a metric that is arguably meaningless as an indicator of scientific quality and, in fact, predicts the rate of article retractions due to fraud.
Working with Thomson Reuters, whose Web of Science database tracks scientific publications, the Times Higher Education has conducted an analysis showing that journal article retractions have increased ten-fold over the past 2 decades.
Although, the number of journal article retractions has grown in the last decade, it is the general consensus that this may be the result of increased awareness rather than misconduct.
Clearly, even in the USA, Europe etc. the current peer review systems is not fool-proof (https://www.scienceexchange.com/reproducibility) [ 1, 2] and article retractions due to fabrication of data are on the rise in a fiercely competitive environment created by an economically difficult climate [ 3].
Eramo's lawsuit is one of several lobbed at Rolling Stone after the article's retraction.
Our findings suggest that attention is a key predictor of retraction – retracted articles arise most frequently among highly-cited articles.
We analyze the universe of peer-reviewed scientific articles retracted from the biomedical literature between 1972 2006 and comparing with a matched control sample in order to identify the correlates, timing, and causal impact of scientific retractions.
"It's disappointing," Dr. Buck, who is now at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, told the journal Nature in a news article about the retraction.
Annie Smith, a spokeswoman for the Irving-owned media holding company Brunswick News, said that no one at the newspaper would comment on the article or the retraction.
