Retractions are on the rise as a result of a surge in post-publication peer review and an emboldened anonymous whistle-blowing movement. Cognizant that their brand may be damaged as a result of not correcting problematic literature, journals and publishers that are loosely considered to be non-"predatory" are trying to contain the deluge of reports on flawed research that has flooded the biomedical and scientific literature. Within this climate, many studies have started to be retracted and corrected, reinforcing the stigmatization associated with retractions, i.e., having a retraction is considered to be a bad or negative thing. Negative retraction stigmatization has mainly been borne by authors, whereas journals and publishers, except for headline-grabbing reports, have thus far largely avoided this stigma. One of the efforts to destigmatize retractions, at least those for honest errors, has been to try to relabel or rebrand retractions. The terms "self-retraction", "amendment", "publisher-caused error", and others have emerged, but such a diverse lexicon may complicate the publishing landscape more than it resolves the stigma. Seeking euphemistic terms to represent a truth within a toxic context of negative stigmatization only politicizes the issue, and does not resolve it. We suggest that a change is needed in the culture within the biomedical community, to acceptance of critique, and that the culture of shaming needs to be halted in order to achieve this. Only then can academics assume greater responsibility, without the risk of being shamed, of retracting their faulty literature, "honestly", when they feel that this is needed.