Skip to content

ACN - 101321555 | ABN - 39101321555

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

AHRECS icon
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Menu
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Exclude terms...
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
AHRECS
Analysis
Animal ethics
Animal Ethics Committee
Animal handling
Animal housing
Animal Research Ethics
Animal Welfare
ANZCCART
Artificial Intelligence
Arts
Australia
Authorship
Belief
Beneficence
Big data
Big data
Biobank
Bioethics
Biomedical
Biospecimens
Breaches
Cartoon/Funny
Case studies
Clinical trial
Collaborative research
Conflicts of interest
Consent
Controversy/Scandal
Controversy/Scandal
Creative
Culture
Data management
Database
Dual-use
Essential Reading
Ethical review
Ethnography
Euthanasia
Evaluative practice/quality assurance
Even though i
First People
Fraud
Gender
Genetics
Get off Gary Play man of the dog
Good practice
Guidance
Honesty
HREC
Human research ethics
Humanities
Institutional responsibilities
International
Journal
Justice
Links
Media
Medical research
Merit and integrity
Methodology
Monitoring
New Zealand
News
Online research
Peer review
Performance
Primary materials
Principles
Privacy
Protection for participants
Psychology
Publication ethics
Questionable Publishers
Research ethics committees
Research integrity
Research Misconduct
Research results
Researcher responsibilities
Resources
Respect for persons
Sample paperwork
sd
se
Serious Adverse Event
Social Science
SoTL
Standards
Supervision
Training
Vulnerability
What was that say
x
Young people
Exclude news

Sort by

Animal Ethics Biosafety Human Research Ethics Research Integrity

(US) What does it mean to correct the scientific record? A case study of the JACS (2000-2023) – (Preprint Papers: Frederique Bordignon | April 2023)

Posted by Connar Allen in Research Integrity on July 8, 2023
Keywords: Institutional responsibilities, International, Journal, Research integrity, Research Misconduct, Research results

The Linked Original Item was Posted On April, 18 2023 10:41:04

Plastic pollution litters the beach at Umkomaas in Kwa Zulu South Africa. The incoming tide leaves a beach polluted with waste products, damaging the environment.
ABSTRACT

The continued citation of retracted papers perpetuates the damage done to scientific knowledge and understanding. We need publishers to act quickly and clearly to indicate if a paper they have published has been retracted. The retraction notices need to clearly indicate the reasons for the retraction, so researchers, the media and the general public can know the reasons why and whether to modify their views on the published claims.

This paper examines how the Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS) displays notices of correction and retraction, and how their status is reflected across various venues. With a corpus of 1083 editorial notices, we first show that even on the JACS website, the original source, there are mistakes and inaccuracies. Additionally, our study demonstrates some improvements in certain contexts in comparison to earlier studies, as well as significant variations between platforms (bibliographic databases and open access archives). But it also reveals that the same types of issues still remain, including the lack of accurate information close to the updated publications, and the lack of a two-way link between notices and original publications. This preliminary research seeks to provide an overview of what constitutes the scientific record and what it means to correct it, in order to avoid the spread of unsubstantiated claims by ill-informed readers.

Bordignon, F. (2023). What does it mean to correct the scientific record? A case study of the JACS (2000-2023) [preprint]. 27th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (STI 2023). https://doi.org/10.55835/643e9f61c0a5d2717e40e59c
Paper: https://dapp.orvium.io/deposits/643e9f61c0a5d2717e40e59c/view

What does it mean to correct the scientific record? A case study of the JACS (2000-2023)
This paper examines how the Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS) displays notices of correction and retraction, and how their status is reflected across various venues. With a corpus of 1083 editorial notices, we first show that even on the JACS website, the original source, there are mis…

Related Reading

Discussion: Why retractions are on the rise by Ivan Oransky, MD – Consilium Scientific (Ivan Oransky | February 2023)

(France) Open letter to CNRS – BishopBlog (Deevy Bishop | February 2023)

The Science and Politics of Journal Retractions: A conversation with Ivan Oransky (Retraction Watch) – YouTube (Ivan Oransky & Siddhartha Roy | June 2022)

Retractions aren’t a panacea for bad research – The Washington Post (Erin Blakemore | July 2022)

Building Stronger Chains Together: Keeping Preprints Connected to the Scholarly Record – Scholarly Kitchen (Michele Avissar-Whiting | June 2022)

How Much Published Crap Will We Put Up With? – Science (Derek Lowe | February 2022)

Increasing confidence and trust in research: cracking down on misconduct – IOP Publishing Blog (Kim Eggleton | April 2022)

Is Scientific Communication Fit for Purpose? – Scholarly Kitchen (November 2021)

Academic journals, journalists perpetuate misinformation in their handling of research retractions, a new study finds – TheJournalisResource (Denise-Marie Ordway | May 2021)

A self-correcting fallacy – Why don’t researchers correct their own errors in the scientific record? – LSE Impact Blog (Julia Rohrer | April 2021)

Correcting the scientific record- a broken system? (Papers: Mark J. Bolland , et. al | December 2020 )

Does science self-correct: What we have learned at Retraction Watch – Penn Libraries (Presentation: Dr Ivan Oransky | October 2020)

What To Do When You Don’t Trust Your Data Anymore – Laskowski Lab at UC Davis (January 2020)

A new publishing approach – retract and replace – is having growing pains – Retraction Watch (Alison McCook | March 2018)

The retraction process needs work. Is there a better way? – Retraction Watch (Alison McCook | March 2018)

Set up a ‘self-retraction’ system for honest errors – Nature (Daniele Fanelli | March 2017)

Related Links

  • About the contributors
  • About the keywords
  • Suggest a resource
  • Report problem/broken link
  • Request a Take Down

Compiled here are links, downloads and other resources relating to research integrity and human research ethics. more…

Resources Menu

Four hands solving a jigsaw against the sun blazing out of a cloudy sky

Research Integrity

  • Codes, guidelines, policies and standards
  • Guidance and resource material
  • Papers
  • Books
  • Animal Ethics

Human Research Ethics

  • Codes, guidelines, policies and standards
  • Guidance and resource material
  • Papers
  • Books

Research Ethics Monthly Receive copies of the Research Ethics Monthly directly
by email. We will never spam you.

  • Enter the answer as a word
  • Hidden
    This field is hidden and only used for import to Mailchimp
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map
  • Site Map

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in