Errata in Medical Publications

Hauptman, Paul J.; Armbrecht, Eric S.; Chibnall, John T.; Guild, Camelia; Timm, Jeremy P.; Rich, Michael W.

doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2014.03.012

Cited by 21 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Since these articles are longer and frequently have multiple authors, the errata rate may have been higher than our study. In fact, a positive correlation between the number of authors and errors (except in conclusion) has been demonstrated in Hauptman's study (17). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

“…The study by Hauptman et al, with a different study design, determined an errata occurrence rate of 7–18% in these five medical journals. For example, the study included only original, meta-analysis and review articles when calculating the errata rate (17). Since these articles are longer and frequently have multiple authors, the errata rate may have been higher than our study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the study reviewed articles published between July 1, 2009, and December 31, 2010. The study excluded certain categories of articles, categorized errata differently, did not determine the timeliness of errata reporting, and did not assess peer-review, editing, and publication processes of the journals (17). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A retrospective analysis of reported errata in five leading medical journals in 2012

Bhatt

Aryal

Panta

et al. 2014

Journal of Community Hospital Internal Medicine Perspectives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAlthough medical publications are frequently used as the source of information, the prevalence of errata remains unclear. The objective of this study was to examine peer-review and publication processes of medical journals as well as to determine the occurrence of reported errata in medical journals and timeliness in identifying and correcting errata.MethodsFive medical journals, New England Journal of Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, Journal of American Medical Association, and Lancet, were evaluated. The characteristics of these journals were obtained from editors’ survey. All these journals report errata noted in their prior publications. We retrospectively analyzed all errata reported from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2012. The mean number of reported errata per issue, the most common errata, and the mean time to report errata were calculated.ResultsThe journals had high impact factors (14–51), received 3,200 to more than 15,000 submissions in 2012, and utilized two or more external reviewers and usually two or more editors for any accepted articles. All the journals edited the accepted articles, including references, figures, and tables for style. A mean of 1.3 articles with ≥1 errata was reported per issue (a total of 306 articles with errata in 226 issues). Errata in author's information, numeric errata, and errata in the figures and tables were the most common errata. The mean time to report the errata was 122 days.ConclusionThe high-impact journals, with extensive pre-publication review, reported relatively few errata per issue. The delay in reporting errata needs further exploration.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A retrospective analysis of reported errata in five leading medical journals in 2012

Bhatt

Aryal

Panta

et al. 2014

Journal of Community Hospital Internal Medicine Perspectives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The authors expounded that the reporting of errata across journals lacks uniformity and summarized that despite published criteria for authorship that mandate final approval of the manuscript by all authors, errors are frequent, including those that may materially change the interpretation of data. Increased vigilance by authors to prevent errata and consensus by journal editors on the format of reporting are warranted [10].…”

Section: Expressions Of Concernmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hauptman et al sought to determine the frequency and significance of published errata in high impact factor journals [10]. This was a retrospective evaluation of errata reports for articles published in 20 English-language general medicine and cardiovascular journals (mean impact factor, 12.23; median, 5.52) over 18 months.…”

Section: Expressions Of Concernmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Correcting the Literature with Errata and Retractions is Good Medical Practice?

Allahbadia

2014

J Obstet Gynecol India

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relationship and incidence of three editorial notices in PubPeer: Errata, expressions of concern, and retractions

Ortega

2020

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article studies the incidence and relationship of three important relevant editorial notices: errata, expressions of concern, and retractions.The journal club PubPeer was used to extract 39,449 research articles and the 2,308 errata, 189 expressions of concern, and 1,531 retractions associated with these publications. The relationship, time delay, and evolution of these publications were then compared, as was their incidence in journals and disciplines. The results show that the relationship between them is scant, the increase in these notices is in proportion to the scientific literature, and the time delay between publication and editorial notice is frequently over 3 years. According to incidence, editorial notices are more frequent in journals specializing in biochemistry, medicine, and multidisciplinarity, and cancer journals release more errata. Research areas with more editorial notices are the life and health sciences. The research fields with the highest percentages of errata and retractions are Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, and Immunology and Microbiology. It is recognized that the use of PubPeer as a data source may have influenced the results.

show abstract

Errata in Medical Publications

Cited by 21 publications

References 14 publications

A retrospective analysis of reported errata in five leading medical journals in 2012

A retrospective analysis of reported errata in five leading medical journals in 2012

Why Correcting the Literature with Errata and Retractions is Good Medical Practice?

The relationship and incidence of three editorial notices in PubPeer: Errata, expressions of concern, and retractions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About