How Authors React to Editorial Prompts About Corrections to Cited Literature: A Cross‐Sectional Study.
Saved in:
| Title: | How Authors React to Editorial Prompts About Corrections to Cited Literature: A Cross‐Sectional Study. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Ursić, Luka1,2 (AUTHOR) luka.ursic@mefst.hr, Vitlov, Nina1 (AUTHOR), Čudina, Karla3 (AUTHOR), Paloš, Andrijana Perković4 (AUTHOR), Marušić, Stjepan Ljudevit5 (AUTHOR), Marušić, Ana1 (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Learned Publishing. Jul2026, Vol. 39 Issue 3, p1-7. 7p. |
| Abstract: | The current methods of amending scholarly literature are inadequate; correction notices are often issued indiscriminately, irrespective of the magnitude of the related error. In this cross‐sectional study, we investigated how authors of articles accepted at the Journal of Global Health between 2021 and 2023 perceive the impact of errata to the references in their articles. The authors found most (n = 228, 99.1%) of the 230 errata in our sample to have no impact on the statements within their articles, which fully agreed with our own assessment of their content (Fleiss' κ = 1). Only two published errata led the authors to change their references or the content of their article. Furthermore, 197 errata (85.7%) did not clearly indicate who initiated the amendment, while 156 (67.8%) did not disclose who was responsible for the underlying error. These findings do not mean that minor amendments are irrelevant; rather, they point to a need for more nuanced taxonomies that would reflect the severity of the error being corrected, while still logging it transparently and publicly. Such a system would allow stakeholders to prioritise corrections that materially impact the knowledge base, while maintaining the integrity and trustworthiness of the scholarly record by making all post‐publication changes visible. Key Points: Few studies have explored the relevance of errata to authors citing the related papers in their own articles.We analysed 230 errata identified within articles accepted at the Journal of Global Health (JoGH) between 2021 and 2023.Most of the errata (99.1%) were not relevant for the article content, as judged by the authors themselves and the JoGH's production editors.Two cases led to changes in the authors' reference lists or the contents of their article.We argue for more nuanced labelling of amendments that reflect the severity of the error being corrected.We warn that such a system must still keep any post‐publication changes visible to ensure the integrity and trustworthiness of the scholarly record. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Learned Publishing is the property of Wiley-Blackwell 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: | Engineering Source |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
Be the first to leave a comment!
