I agree retraction or correction is appropriate here. However, I would argue that correcting mistakes is a routine element of science -- whether due to a copy error or a miscalibrated instrument -- whereas malevolence is not.

Sure, the end result on the consumer's trust in the science is the same regardless of why the deficiency occurred, but the problem is far more tractable if it results from sloppy QA (or equivalently calibration error and calculation issues) rather than malevolence. In the first case the researchers can eat some crow and do better science next time; in the second you have people who flat out don't belong in science.