The effectiveness of the practice of correction and republication in the biomedical literature.

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Title:	The effectiveness of the practice of correction and republication in the biomedical literature.
Authors:	Peterson, Gabriel M.¹ gpeterson@nccu.edu
Source:	Journal of the Medical Library Association. Apr2010, Vol. 98 Issue 2, p135-139. 5p. 1 Graph.
Subjects:	Medical literature, Published errata, Medicine, Bibliometrics, Periodical articles, Bibliographical citations, MEDLINE, Library information networks
Abstract:	Objective: This research measures the effectiveness of the practice of correction and republication of invalidated articles in the biomedical literature by analyzing the rate of citation of the flawed and corrected versions of scholarly articles over time. If the practice of correction and republication is effective, then the incidence of citation of flawed versions should diminish over time and increased incidence of citation of the republication should be observed. Methods: This is a bibliometric study using citation analysis and statistical analysis of pairs of flawed and corrected articles in MEDLINE and Web of Science. Results: The difference between citation levels of flawed originals and corrected republications does not approach statistical significance until eight to twelve years post-republication. Results showed substantial variability among bibliographic sources in their provision of authoritative bibliographic information. Conclusions: Correction and republication is a marginally effective biblioremediative practice. The data suggest that inappropriate citation behavior may be partly attributable to author ignorance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
	Copyright of Journal of the Medical Library Association is the property of University of Pittsburgh, University Library System 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

Description
Abstract:	Objective: This research measures the effectiveness of the practice of correction and republication of invalidated articles in the biomedical literature by analyzing the rate of citation of the flawed and corrected versions of scholarly articles over time. If the practice of correction and republication is effective, then the incidence of citation of flawed versions should diminish over time and increased incidence of citation of the republication should be observed. Methods: This is a bibliometric study using citation analysis and statistical analysis of pairs of flawed and corrected articles in MEDLINE and Web of Science. Results: The difference between citation levels of flawed originals and corrected republications does not approach statistical significance until eight to twelve years post-republication. Results showed substantial variability among bibliographic sources in their provision of authoritative bibliographic information. Conclusions: Correction and republication is a marginally effective biblioremediative practice. The data suggest that inappropriate citation behavior may be partly attributable to author ignorance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:	15365050
DOI:	10.3163/1536-5050.98.2.005