TY  - JOUR

T1  - Abstract
Purpose: To investigate the practical difficulties for journalists reporting scientific
research that is later retracted and to examine how retracted research is framed in online
news.
Design/methodology/approach: This article reports two studies involving content
analysis and interviews. It integrates macro-level quantitative insights (online news
article framing and content) with micro-level qualitative data (journalists’ professional
constraints). The content analysis used a sample of 73 online news stories reporting on
21 high-attention retracted articles identified from the Retraction Watch database and
Altmetric.com. The qualitative component involved semi-structured interviews with 10
UK and 10 Finnish journalists to explore their lived experiences and decision-making
processes about the potential for research to be retracted.
Findings: While Factual neutral reporting was the most prevalent frame, it was closely
followed by Sensationalism in descriptors and frames reflecting Distrust in science.
Media narratives typically focused on individual wrongdoing and data fraud, often
overlooking systemic causes of retraction. The interviews revealed a universal absence
of a systematic monitoring process for retractions among journalists in both countries.
This deficit is due to time pressures, a lack of financial incentives for retrospective
checks, and a reliance on luck or informal networks to detect retractions. Consequently,
updating news stories following a retraction is rare, and when updates occur, they often
fail to explain in plain language how the retraction influences the original claims.
Research limitations/implications: The reliance on Altmetric.com introduced a
potential bias toward English-language sources and countries, and the inclusion of blogs
in the "news media" classification may overrepresent alternative narratives. The findings
reveal a critical gap between the academic community's self-correction and the capacity
for similar journalistic responsiveness, contributing to the persistent circulation of
misleading scientific information.
Originality/value: This study is the first to systematically investigate the challenges of
dealing with retractions from the perspective of science journalism. By comparing the UK
and Finnish contexts, it shows that different structural pressures lead to the same
practical outcome: a reliance on fortune to correct the public record.

JO  - Journal of Documentation

PY  - 2026/01/23

AU  - Iwaniec-Thompson M

AU  - Sormanen N

AU  - Thelwall M

AU  - Holmberg K

ED  - 

Y2  - 2026/01/30

ER  -