Assigning linguistic agency and attributive responsibility in retraction notices.
Saved in:
| Title: | Assigning linguistic agency and attributive responsibility in retraction notices. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Xu, Shaoxiong Brian (AUTHOR), Hu, Guangwei (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Ethics & Behavior. Feb/Mar2026, Vol. 36 Issue 2, p165-181. 17p. |
| Subjects: | Grammar, Responsibility, Logistic regression analysis, Statistical sampling, Multiple regression analysis, Authorship, Descriptive statistics, Linguistics, Discourse analysis, Statistics, Publishing, Discipline of children |
| Abstract: | Assigning responsibility for retraction is a crucial rhetorical strategy for communicating retraction stigma in retraction notices. However, the linguistic realization of this strategy remains largely unexplored. This study addresses the gap by analyzing 3,296 retraction notices for the disclosure of retraction-engendering acts by responsibility-bearing authors and the grammatical constructions used to represent agency and assign responsibility. It is found that retraction-engendering acts were disclosed in 92.1% of the retraction notices. In the retraction notices disclosing these acts, seven distinct grammatical constructions were employed to represent agency linguistically and encode responsibility attributively. Significant variations were identified in both the disclosure of retraction-engendering acts and the grammatical representation of responsibility across four contextual factors: academic disciplines (hard disciplines vs. soft disciplines), retraction periods (1980–2009 vs. 2010–2019), retraction notice authorship (i.e. journal authorities vs. authors of retracted publications), and retraction reasons (i.e. blatant misconduct vs. inappropriate conduct vs. questionable conduct vs. honest error). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Ethics & Behavior is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Assigning responsibility for retraction is a crucial rhetorical strategy for communicating retraction stigma in retraction notices. However, the linguistic realization of this strategy remains largely unexplored. This study addresses the gap by analyzing 3,296 retraction notices for the disclosure of retraction-engendering acts by responsibility-bearing authors and the grammatical constructions used to represent agency and assign responsibility. It is found that retraction-engendering acts were disclosed in 92.1% of the retraction notices. In the retraction notices disclosing these acts, seven distinct grammatical constructions were employed to represent agency linguistically and encode responsibility attributively. Significant variations were identified in both the disclosure of retraction-engendering acts and the grammatical representation of responsibility across four contextual factors: academic disciplines (hard disciplines vs. soft disciplines), retraction periods (1980–2009 vs. 2010–2019), retraction notice authorship (i.e. journal authorities vs. authors of retracted publications), and retraction reasons (i.e. blatant misconduct vs. inappropriate conduct vs. questionable conduct vs. honest error). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 10508422 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/10508422.2025.2494622 |
