Toward fulfilling the aspirational goal of science as self‐correcting: A call for editorial courage and diligence for error correction

Vorland, Colby J.; Brown, Andrew W.; Ejima, Keisuke; Mayo‐Wilson, Evan; Valdez, Danny; Allison, David B.

doi:10.1111/eci.13190

Cited by 19 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Error correction should be done in a fair and efficient manner (e.g., Vorland et al ., 2020 ). Although there are several existing standards for publication ethics and norms (e.g., Committee on Publication Ethics [COPE], and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors [ICMJE]), few have been tested empirically.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving open and rigorous science: ten key future research opportunities related to rigor, reproducibility, and transparency in scientific research

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: As part of a coordinated effort to expand research activity around rigor, reproducibility, and transparency (RRT) across scientific disciplines, a team of investigators at the Indiana University School of Public Health-Bloomington hosted a workshop in October 2019 with international leaders to discuss key opportunities for RRT research. Objective: The workshop aimed to identify research priorities and opportunities related to RRT. Design: Over two-days, workshop attendees gave presentations and participated in three working groups: (1) Improving Education & Training in RRT, (2) Reducing Statistical Errors and Increasing Analytic Transparency, and (3) Looking Outward: Increasing Truthfulness and Accuracy of Research Communications. Following small-group discussions, the working groups presented their findings, and participants discussed the research opportunities identified. The investigators compiled a list of research priorities, which were circulated to all participants for feedback. Results: Participants identified the following priority research questions: (1) Can RRT-focused statistics and mathematical modeling courses improve statistics practice?; (2) Can specialized training in scientific writing improve transparency?; (3) Does modality (e.g. face to face, online) affect the efficacy RRT-related education?; (4) How can automated programs help identify errors more efficiently?; (5) What is the prevalence and impact of errors in scientific publications (e.g., analytic inconsistencies, statistical errors, and other objective errors)?; (6) Do error prevention workflows reduce errors?; (7) How do we encourage post-publication error correction?; (8) How does ‘spin’ in research communication affect stakeholder understanding and use of research evidence?; (9) Do tools to aid writing research reports increase comprehensiveness and clarity of research reports?; and (10) Is it possible to inculcate scientific values and norms related to truthful, rigorous, accurate, and comprehensive scientific reporting? Conclusion: Participants identified important and relatively unexplored questions related to improving RRT. This list may be useful to the scientific community and investigators seeking to advance meta-science (i.e. research on research).

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving open and rigorous science: ten key future research opportunities related to rigor, reproducibility, and transparency in scientific research

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Shared templates could assist with describing errors at post-publication review sites such as PubPeer and could facilitate the communication of published errors between PubPeer and journals. Structured templates could also encourage more standardized and transparent reporting in retraction notices and other post-publication reports (Vorland et al 2020;Vuong 2020a, b), whereas universally accepted templates would allow information about published errors to be aggregated, analysed and reported. This would improve the awareness and understanding of particular error types, which could encourage more journals to proactively investigate publications and submitted manuscripts for repeated errors such as wrongly identified nucleotide reagents.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Errors that escape detection during both manuscript preparation and peer review can be subsequently flagged and/or corrected by approaches including retractions, expressions of concern and author corrections (Fanelli et al 2018;Vaught et al 2017). Despite the range of approaches that are available to correct errors within the literature, researchers have described difficulties in navigating these processes (Allison et al 2016;Grey et al 2020a;Malički et al 2019;Saiz et al 2018;Vorland et al 2020). Post-publication review processes have been described as temporally slow, complex and time consuming (Grey et al 2020a;Malički et al 2019;Saiz et al 2018), and even resulting in financial burdens to the notifying party (Allison et al 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The thin ret(raction) line: biomedical journal responses to incorrect non-targeting nucleotide sequence reagents in human gene knockdown publications

Byrne¹,

Park²,

West³

et al. 2021

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The capacity of the scientific literature to self-correct is of vital importance, but few studies have compared post-publication journal responses to specific error types. We have compared journal responses to a specific reagent error in 31 human gene knockdown publications, namely a non-targeting or negative control nucleotide sequence that is instead predicted to target a human gene. The 31 papers published by 13 biomedical journals generated 26 published responses (14 retractions, 5 expressions of concern, 7 author corrections which included one resolved expression of concern) as well as 6 stated decisions to take no action. Variations in published responses were noted both between journals and by 4 journals that published different responses to at least 2 papers. A subset of published responses revealed conflicting explanations for the wrongly identified control reagent, despite 30/31 papers obtaining their gene knockdown reagents from the same external supplier. Viewed collectively, different journal responses to human gene knockdown publications with a common reagent error type suggest that editorial staff require more support to interpret post-publication notifications of incorrect nucleotide sequence reagents. We propose a draft template to facilitate the communication, interpretation and investigation of published errors, including errors affecting research reagents.

show abstract

“…Based upon published claims of the extent of paper mill activities , and our own unpublished results, it is likely that thousands of paper mill‐generated papers are already concealed within the research literature. In addition to recognizing and rejecting paper mill submissions, publishers and journals must simplify and accelerate postpublication review processes , as the inability of journals to issue timely corrections only supports the paper mill business model. Our current slow and resource‐intensive processes appear to have been designed with the expectation that very few papers will be flagged to individual journals.…”

Section: Accelerating Postpublication Review Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital magic, or the dark arts of the 21^stcentury—how can journals and peer reviewers detect manuscripts and publications from paper mills?

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, it has been proposed that unrealistic requirements for academics and medical doctors to publish in scientific journals, combined with monetary publication rewards, have led to forms of contract cheating offered by organizations known as paper mills. Paper mills are alleged to offer products ranging from research data through to ghostwritten fraudulent or fabricated manuscripts and submission services. While paper mill operations remain poorly understood, it seems likely that paper mills need to balance product quantity and quality, such that they produce or contribute to large numbers of manuscripts that will be accepted for publication. Producing manuscripts at scale may be facilitated by the use of manuscript templates, which could give rise to shared features such as textual and organizational similarities, the description of highly generic study hypotheses and experimental approaches, digital images that show evidence of manipulation and/or reuse, and/or errors affecting verifiable experimental reagents. Based on these features, we propose practical steps that editors, journal staff, and peer reviewers can take to recognize and respond to research manuscripts and publications that may have been produced with undeclared assistance from paper mills.

show abstract

Toward fulfilling the aspirational goal of science as self‐correcting: A call for editorial courage and diligence for error correction

Cited by 19 publications

References 7 publications

Improving open and rigorous science: ten key future research opportunities related to rigor, reproducibility, and transparency in scientific research

Improving open and rigorous science: ten key future research opportunities related to rigor, reproducibility, and transparency in scientific research

The thin ret(raction) line: biomedical journal responses to incorrect non-targeting nucleotide sequence reagents in human gene knockdown publications

Digital magic, or the dark arts of the 21^stcentury—how can journals and peer reviewers detect manuscripts and publications from paper mills?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Toward fulfilling the aspirational goal of science as self‐correcting: A call for editorial courage and diligence for error correction

Cited by 19 publications

References 7 publications

Improving open and rigorous science: ten key future research opportunities related to rigor, reproducibility, and transparency in scientific research

Improving open and rigorous science: ten key future research opportunities related to rigor, reproducibility, and transparency in scientific research

The thin ret(raction) line: biomedical journal responses to incorrect non-targeting nucleotide sequence reagents in human gene knockdown publications

Digital magic, or the dark arts of the 21stcentury—how can journals and peer reviewers detect manuscripts and publications from paper mills?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Digital magic, or the dark arts of the 21^stcentury—how can journals and peer reviewers detect manuscripts and publications from paper mills?