How journals alert readers to potential problems in research without waiting for a final verdict
In the vast and ever-expanding library of scientific knowledge, how can readers be alerted to potential problems in a research paper without waiting for a final verdict? Imagine a "caution" sign placed on a published study, signaling to the scientific community that questions have emerged that require further investigation. This is precisely the role of an Editorial Expression of Concern—a crucial but often misunderstood mechanism in the self-correcting machinery of science.
Issued by journal editors or publishers, an Editorial Expression of Concern serves as a formal notice that a publication may contain errors or be otherwise untrustworthy, while falling short of a full retraction. These expressions are increasingly common in today's scientific landscape, with data showing that over half of all such notices in PubMed were issued between 2014 and 2016 alone 2 . Understanding this process provides a fascinating window into how science polices itself, balancing the need for prompt warning with the requirement for due process.
An Editorial Expression of Concern is a publisher's note regarding concerns raised about a publication. It represents a middle ground in scientific publishing—not as definitive as a retraction, but more serious than a simple correction. According to the Committee on Publication Ethics, these notices aim to draw attention to potential problems in a publication without itself constituting a retraction or correction 2 .
Journals typically issue these expressions under specific circumstances recommended by organizations like COPE and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors 4 :
Unlike retractions, which require more definitive evidence of problems, Expressions of Concern allow editors to alert readers promptly while investigations are ongoing, serving as a temporary safeguard for the scientific record.
Alerts readers to potential issues without definitive conclusion
Often issued while investigations are ongoing
Balances transparency with fairness to authors
The use of Editorial Expressions of Concern, while still relatively rare, has been steadily increasing. A comprehensive descriptive study published in Research Integrity and Peer Review identified 230 EEoCs affecting 300 publications in PubMed up to August 2016, with the earliest issued in 1985 2 . Strikingly, 52% of these were issued between 2014 and 2016, indicating a growing recognition of their importance in maintaining scientific integrity.
The same study revealed that only about 29% of publications with Expressions of Concern were eventually retracted by late 2016 2 . This suggests that most concerns either remain unresolved or are eventually resolved without needing retraction. The data shows that:
| Outcome | Percentage | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Retracted | 29% | Articles eventually fully retracted |
| Resolved Otherwise | 40% | Concerns addressed without retraction |
| Remain Open | 31% | No final resolution as of study completion |
In March 2024, Science Advances published an Editorial Expression of Concern regarding a 2020 research article titled "Nanoscale metal-organic frameworks for x-ray activated in situ cancer vaccination" by Ni et al. 1
The notice stated that the University of Chicago had informed the journal about "apparent partial overlap between the confocal images of two control groups in the Supplementary Materials." Essentially, there were concerns that images meant to represent different experimental conditions might have been inappropriately duplicated or overlapped.
Rather than immediately retracting the paper, the journal chose the Expression of Concern pathway, noting that "the authors repeat the experiments for the supplementary figures in question." This approach balanced the need to alert the scientific community with allowing the authors to demonstrate the robustness of their findings through replication.
Problems may be spotted by readers, reviewers, or occasionally by the authors themselves 3
Editors assess the credibility of the concerns
The authors' institution may be contacted to investigate
Editors determine whether an Expression of Concern is warranted
The process may eventually lead to correction, retraction, or clearance of concerns
| Trigger Category | Specific Issues | Frequency in EEoCs |
|---|---|---|
| Data Integrity | Image manipulation, data fabrication, methodological errors | 68% (validity concerns) |
| Ethical Concerns | Plagiarism, authorship disputes, ethical violations | Not specified in results |
| External Factors | Institutional investigations, legal proceedings | 31% (ongoing investigations) |
Scientific publishing employs several mechanisms to maintain research integrity, with Editorial Expressions of Concern being just one tool in the toolbox.
| Mechanism | Purpose | When Used |
|---|---|---|
| Erratum/Corrigendum | Correct minor errors that don't affect conclusions | Author or publisher mistakes in published work |
| Editorial Expression of Concern | Alert readers to potentially serious issues | Concerns about integrity while investigation is ongoing |
| Retraction | Remove seriously flawed or unethical work | Confirmed scientific misconduct or irreproducible findings |
| Addendum | Add significant information | New findings crucial to understanding the work |
These mechanisms operate under guidelines from organizations like the Committee on Publication Ethics and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, which help standardize practices across journals 3 4 .
For minor errors that don't affect the main conclusions
For potential serious issues requiring investigation
For confirmed serious flaws or misconduct
For adding important information to existing work
Editorial Expressions of Concern serve several critical functions in the scientific ecosystem:
They provide prompt notification of potential problems without waiting for lengthy investigations to conclude
They make the scientific process more open by acknowledging that even published work may have issues
They allow for proper investigation while minimizing premature judgments
Unlike removal of articles, they maintain the scientific record while flagging concerns
As noted by Wolters Kluwer publishers, "An expression of concern is used to raise awareness to readers that an article may be unreliable. It may be a precursor to a full retraction, but not always" 3 .
Editorial Expressions of Concern represent an important development in science's ongoing effort to self-correct. They acknowledge that scientific publishing is a human endeavor—subject to error, misunderstanding, and occasionally misconduct—while providing a measured response that protects both the scientific record and the rights of those involved.
As the 2017 study concluded, while EEoCs have been "rare publishing events in the biomedical literature, their use has been increasing" 2 . This trend likely reflects growing vigilance rather than increasing problems—a positive sign for scientific integrity.
The next time you encounter an Editorial Expression of Concern while reading scientific literature, recognize it not as a sign of system failure, but as evidence of science's robust mechanisms for course correction. It represents the scientific community's commitment to truth-seeking, demonstrating that vigilance continues long after publication day.