In the paper “Ranking-Based Sanctions for Retraction-Afflicted Elite Researchers,” published in the journal Accountability in Research, the authors propose a framework aimed at holding prominent researchers accountable for retractions. While methodologically detailed, the approach is fundamentally flawed: it reflects a Dark Ages approach to accountability by assigning blame without establishing culpability, misapplying deterrence logic, and actively undermining the process of scientific self-correction. By treating all retractions as equivalent, the framework blurs the critical distinction between deliberate misconduct and honest error, undermining both fairness and scientific integrity, while fostering perverse incentives that discourage transparency, openness, and the responsible correction of the scientific record.
Declaration of Competing Interests – I argue that retractions in academic publishing should adhere to the principles of justice exemplified in legal systems, with consequences carefully calibrated according to intent, magnitude of harm, and accountability, thereby ensuring that corrections serve the integrity of the scholarly record rather than functioning as arbitrary or punitive measures akin to those of the Inquisition. https://pachecotorgal.com/2025/12/20/a-tiered-approach-to-retractions-preserving-scientific-integrity-without-undue-harm/
Pacheco-Torgal 