How should medical journals deal with errors?

[Sly Saint]

From 2012

That errors occur in published articles is not surprising. Errors occur even in research articles that undergo extensive pre-publication peer review. Articles that undergo less rigorous peer review – such as commissioned editorials – will therefore also contain errors.

What is needed from journals are rigorous and consistent policies for dealing with such errors when these are detected. This is not just an academic point. Statements and statistics in leading medical journals are likely to be referenced in future articles, and could also influence clinical practice and health policy. We therefore need to ensure that these facts are as accurate as possible and corrected quickly if inaccurate.

this next bit is rather ironic to say the least

Can medical journals learn from other fields of publishing in improving the accuracy of their articles and dealing with errors? There are lessons that can be learned from newspapers and guidelines for the publication of government statistics.

Some newspapers have appointed Readers' Editors to help correct significant errors quickly. This includes The Guardian newspaper in the UK, for example, whose readers' editor states that his role is to ‘collect, consider, investigate, respond to, and where appropriate come to a conclusion about readers’ comments, concerns, and complaints in a prompt and timely manner, from a position of independence within the paper'.5 As part of this process, The Guardian has a section on its website where corrections and clarifications are published so that these are clearly visible to its readers. The publication of government statistics in the UK is regulated by a code of practice for official statistics that includes a commitment to correct any errors discovered in statistical reports and notify relevant people promptly.6

Although some journals do claim to have policies that encourage authors to respond to significant criticisms of their articles, such policies are currently applied haphazardly, and journals do not appear to have any sanctions that they can use to make authors respond more appropriately to potential errors and misleading statements.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3284292/


From July 2019:
Fixing Errors in a Published Paper: Tips for Authors

What Constitutes an Error?

Unintentional errors include those associated with data collection or classification, statistical analysis, information that cannot be verified by a peer reviewer, typographical errors and misspellings, or labeling a figure as “on the right” or “on the left” when the opposite is true. Essentially, unintentional errors comprise mistakes that were not willful on the part of the author or publisher and do not compromise the outcomes of the research.

Intentional errors constitute academic misconduct and include concurrent submission of a single paper to multiple journals, conflicts of interest, fabrication or manipulation of data, noncompliance with research protocols, plagiarism, and dividing a manuscript into several small papers (“salami slicing”). Academic misconduct “affects the publication record or the scientific integrity of the paper, or the reputation of the authors or the journal.”

Journals’ Response to Errors

The process of responding to an error in a published paper is complicated and burdensome to all involved. However, journal editors are responsible for maintaining the integrity of their publication and upholding strict standards for good science.

Do the Right Thing

Authors have two choices when faced with the revelation of an error in their published papers: attempt to avoid the consequences or make public corrections. Retraction policies and methods of correcting errors or creating an addendum to a research paper will vary by journals. When the author’s reputation and the reputation of the journal are at stake, it is best to deal with the error directly and quickly.

full article here:
https://www.enago.com/academy/handling-errors-published-paper-tips-authors/

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

I will update on the progress of my request for errata/corrigenda for the Peter Denton White paper, to which PDW and key WHO/ICD-11 team members have been copied in, when there has been a significant development.

I received several emails yesterday from the Regional Editor, UK & Europe and the new Editor-in-Chief of JECP.

 

[rvallee]

From 2012



this next bit is rather ironic to say the least







https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3284292/


From July 2019:
Fixing Errors in a Published Paper: Tips for Authors

What Constitutes an Error?




Journals’ Response to Errors


Do the Right Thing


full article here:
https://www.enago.com/academy/handling-errors-published-paper-tips-authors/

What this spells is people in charge are aware of the problems and the solutions to those problems but simply choose not to because...

Would be interesting to know what follows that sentence. Why is nothing being done about it? Money, most likely, but still. Seriously bizarre considering the people who reject any call for change may themselves, or their family, be hurt by those mistakes. It's doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons. Very myopic.

Pretty similar to all the fluff over patient engagement when in practice it's systematically rejected. Almost everyone becomes a patient eventually and it's almost universal for medical professionals to find themselves on the wrong end of the massive power asymmetry and realize how completely broken and despair-inducing it is.