INTRODUCTION Retractions are a mechanism by which science corrects itself, withdrawing statements or claims that have proven to be erroneous. However, this requires that such corrections be displayed clearly and consistently. This paper considers how retracted publications in the mental health literature are represented across different platforms. METHODS Using Retraction Watch, we identified 144 retracted articles in the mental health field. We looked across seven platforms to determine the consistency and clarity of the retracted status of these publications. RESULTS Of the 812 records for retracted publications, 40.0% (n=325) did not indicate that the paper had been retracted. Of available PDFs, 26.3% (53/201) did not indicate that the paper had been retracted. Of the 144 articles studied, only 10 were represented as being retracted across all resources through which they were available. DISCUSSION Retracted publications in this sample were inconsistently represented across library resources. While technical solutions, such as Crossmark by Crossref, may help mitigate these challenges, the inconsistent display of retractions has implications for education and outreach. CONCLUSION Our study found that the retractions in our sample were not clearly and consistently represented across sources. Libraries, which provide access to and training in these resources, have a responsibility to raise awareness of these inconsistencies and to advocate for more timely and accurate metadata.
|Original language||English (US)|
|Journal||Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication|
|Issue number||General Issue|
|State||Published - 2018|