The Ctrl-Z award honors researchers who take the responsible step of correcting the scientific record.
Image credit:©iStock.com, cienpies
The act of publishing a study often marks the peak of a researcher’s effort. Yet when errors surface later, many scientists hesitate to retract their work, even though doing so upholds scientific integrity. Although retractions are essential for correcting the record, they are frequently stigmatized as blemishes on a researcher’s reputation.
To address this reluctance, the Center for Scientific Integrity—a nonprofit dedicated to advancing research ethics—introduced the Ctrl‑Z Award in March 2026. Named after the Windows keyboard shortcut for “undo,” the prize honors individuals or teams that retract papers after discovering serious problems.
“Recognizing and rewarding responsible behavior in science is vital, especially when it involves a difficult decision,” said Ivan Oransky, executive director of the Center for Scientific Integrity.
The concept originated from longtime supporters Harvey Motulsky and Earl Beutler, science entrepreneurs who backed the initiative. Oransky noted, “We thought this was a terrific idea.” He added that most scientific accolades celebrate outputs such as publications and citations, reinforcing the “publish or perish” culture. “This award flips the incentive, encouraging the process of self‑correction rather than just the product,” he explained.
Nominations come from colleagues who must submit a letter attesting to the nominee’s retraction experience. The award includes separate categories for early‑career and senior researchers. This year’s submissions were evaluated by integrity scholars Dorothy Bishop of the University of Oxford and Jennifer Byrne of the University of Sydney, who assessed the difficulty of each retraction and the extent to which the researchers accepted responsibility for the mistake. Motulsky and Beutler provided funding and feedback on the award’s design but did not participate in judging.
When the award was announced in spring 2026, Oransky reported an enthusiastic response. The first Ctrl‑Z recipients were honored in August 2026. Alyssa Smith, a graduate researcher at the College of the Holy Cross, identified a coding error in her data that required substantial revisions to her manuscript. Kate Laskowski, a behavioral ecologist at the University of California, Davis, publicly retracted a 2020 study after learning that a collaborator had supplied fabricated data; she received the senior‑researcher prize.
Beyond the recognition, each winner received a monetary award. The Center for Scientific Integrity plans to host webinars where the awardees discuss their retraction experiences.
Although the program currently has support for several annual cycles, Oransky expressed hope to expand it to acknowledge more researchers. In the longer term, he envisions academic departments inviting Ctrl‑Z laureates to speak about the retraction process, perhaps even featuring them in tenure‑review dossiers. “Seeing such recognition in a tenure file would be truly exciting,” he remarked.
Deciding to retract a paper carries career risks because of the lingering stigma attached to retractions, which makes the decision courageous. Oransky hopes the award will help normalize retraction as a valuable scientific practice. He said the immediate incentive is the chance to win the award, but the larger, aspirational goal is to foster a culture that values and promotes self‑correction.
