A Synthesis of the Formats for Correcting Erroneous and Fraudulent Academic Literature, and Associated Challenges

Abstract

Academic publishing is undergoing a highly transformative process, and many established rules and value systems that are in place, such as traditional peer review (TPR) and preprints, are facing unprecedented challenges, including as a result of post-publication peer review. The integrity and validity of the academic literature continue to rely naively on blind trust, while TPR and preprints continue to fail to effectively screen out errors, fraud, and misconduct. Imperfect TPR invariably results in imperfect papers that have passed through varying levels of rigor of screening and validation. If errors or misconduct were not detected during TPR’s editorial screening, but are detected at the post-publication stage, an opportunity is created to correct the academic record. Currently, the most common forms of correcting the academic literature are errata, corrigenda, expressions of concern, and retractions or withdrawals. Some additional measures to correct the literature have emerged, including manuscript versioning, amendments, partial retractions and retract and replace. Preprints can also be corrected if their version is updated. This paper discusses the risks, benefits and limitations of these forms of correcting the academic literature. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10838-022-09607-4.

How to handle the academic literature of sex offenders? A post-publication protection mechanism is needed

“…How could the publication system be improved to ensure justice and protection – at the post-publication stage – of co-authors of sexual abusers, predators or others who have employed harassment as their modus operandi in their laboratories, or to research subjects whose identities are generally anonymized in research papers? Should EiCs issue an expression of concern (EoC) to alert readers and the public that there may be issues of relevance that may impact the overall ethical integrity of the paper (Teixeira da Silva, 2022)? The EoC is useful because it serves a very specific function in this situation, by alerting peers, readers and the public that there is a serious issue (i.e.…”

Against “silent” retractions in neuroscience

“…On the one hand, it is essential that journals act when concerns are raised as to the scientific accuracy of a paper it has published. We note the possibility that OA journals might follow different policies to correct erroneous or fraudulent literature (Teixeira da Silva, 2022). On the other hand, these retractions are not in line with current retraction policies that Life Neuroscience claims to follow, that is, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) codes of conduct (Figure 1B).…”

Amending the literature through version control

“…We argue that the concerns raised in our survey as well as our own thoughts of potential shortcomings are not unique to this system. Disagreement among co-authors, visibility of the amendment and malpractice are some issues that pertain just as much to the current system of corrections [4,16]. For instance, those scientists who engage in fraud [17] are just as unlikely to flag their malpractice with our system as with the current set-up.…”