ACN - 101321555 Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)
Search
Generic filters
Exact text matches only
Search into
Filter by Categories
Research integrity
Filter by Categories
Human Research Ethics

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesResearch IntegrityFor problematic papers, don’t retract or correct, say publishing experts: Amend – Retraction Watch (Alison McCook | April 2017)

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

For problematic papers, don’t retract or correct, say publishing experts: Amend – Retraction Watch (Alison McCook | April 2017)

Published/Released on April 04, 2017 | Posted by Admin on June 9, 2017 / , , , , , , ,
 


View full details | Go to resource


A group of publishing experts have proposed a somewhat radical idea: Instead of retracting papers, or issuing corrections that address problems, authors should amend published articles. Here’s how it would work – any post-publication changes would be added as amendments labeled “insubstantial,” “substantial,” or “complete” (equivalent to a retraction). Is this a better way? We spoke with authors of a preprint in BioRxiv — Virginia Barbour, chair of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE); Theodora Bloom, executive editor of The BMJ; Jennifer Lin, director of product management at Crossref; and Elizabeth Moylan, senior editor of research integrity at BioMed Central.

Retraction Watch: Why do you think it’s a good idea to amend articles, rather than issue formal retractions or corrections?

Authors: We think there are two main issues that mean the current types of correction and retraction don’t serve the scientific community well.

Read the rest of this interview



Related Reading

Resources Menu

Research Integrity


Human Research Ethics

0