Bad news!
Very odious, because probably only the authors or peer reviewers or individuals familiar with a pre-print (if it exists) could tell or presume that such a "stealth correction" was introduced by the publisher. How often do they check that their article is still intact post-publication? Very unlikely, they are to busy to move on to the next project.
Only 131 cases between 2005 and 2024 were discovered so far! That is very little given that about 3 million peer-reviewed scientific articles are published every year (according to AI assisted Google search). However, if these articles are among the more important ones or if the real/unreported figures are much higher than discovered so far.
"Unacknowledged post-publication alterations, or stealth corrections, in peer-reviewed papers could signal deeper issues with transparency in scientific publishing, researchers have warned in a preprint. ... research-integrity sleuths, report 131 cases of what they call ‘stealth corrections’, where journals amend papers without any acknowledgement of their alterations. ...
Troubling examples of stealth corrections include a case where a journal’s editor-in-chief was added as an author on a corrected paper. In another instance, the publisher removed a paper from a special issue – possibly to meet external standards like those set by the Directory of Open Access Journals – without offering any public explanation. Journals have also been silently covering the tracks of generative AI tools, like ChatGTP, used in drafting manuscripts. ...
The current study also highlights significant gaps in how corrections are handled. While the Committee on Publication Ethics, charged with defining best ethical practices in scholarly publishing, provides guidance on issues like plagiarism or image manipulation, it lacks specific recommendations for more subtle modifications, consent statements or the assignment of handling editors. The preprint notes that there is also a worrying lack of uniformity in publishers’ policies regarding post-publication changes. Publishers’ guidelines are often vague, leaving editors with too much discretion over whether or not corrections should be issued."
The current study also highlights significant gaps in how corrections are handled. While the Committee on Publication Ethics, charged with defining best ethical practices in scholarly publishing, provides guidance on issues like plagiarism or image manipulation, it lacks specific recommendations for more subtle modifications, consent statements or the assignment of handling editors. The preprint notes that there is also a worrying lack of uniformity in publishers’ policies regarding post-publication changes. Publishers’ guidelines are often vague, leaving editors with too much discretion over whether or not corrections should be issued."
From the abstract:
"Introduction:
Thorough maintenance of the scientific record is needed to ensure the trustworthiness of its content. This can be undermined by a stealth correction, which is at least one post-publication change made to a scientific article, without providing a correction note or any other indicator that the publication was temporarily or permanently altered. In this paper we provide several examples of stealth corrections in order to demonstrate that these exist within the scientific literature. As far as we are aware, no documentation of such stealth corrections was previously reported in the scientific literature.
Thorough maintenance of the scientific record is needed to ensure the trustworthiness of its content. This can be undermined by a stealth correction, which is at least one post-publication change made to a scientific article, without providing a correction note or any other indicator that the publication was temporarily or permanently altered. In this paper we provide several examples of stealth corrections in order to demonstrate that these exist within the scientific literature. As far as we are aware, no documentation of such stealth corrections was previously reported in the scientific literature.
Methods:
We identified stealth corrections ourselves, or found already reported ones on the public database this http URL or through social media accounts of known science sleuths.
We identified stealth corrections ourselves, or found already reported ones on the public database this http URL or through social media accounts of known science sleuths.
Results:
In total we report 131 articles that were affected by stealth corrections and were published between 2005 and 2024. These stealth corrections were found among multiple publishers and scientific fields.
In total we report 131 articles that were affected by stealth corrections and were published between 2005 and 2024. These stealth corrections were found among multiple publishers and scientific fields.
Conclusion: and recommendations
Stealth corrections exist in the scientific literature. This needs to end immediately as it threatens scientific integrity.
We recommend the following:
1) Tracking all changes to the published record by all publishers in an open, uniform and transparent manner, preferably by online submission systems that log every change publicly, making stealth corrections impossible;
2) Clear definitions and guidelines on all types of corrections;
3) Support sustained vigilance of the scientific community to publicly register stealth corrections."
Stealth corrections exist in the scientific literature. This needs to end immediately as it threatens scientific integrity.
We recommend the following:
1) Tracking all changes to the published record by all publishers in an open, uniform and transparent manner, preferably by online submission systems that log every change publicly, making stealth corrections impossible;
2) Clear definitions and guidelines on all types of corrections;
3) Support sustained vigilance of the scientific community to publicly register stealth corrections."
The existence of stealth corrections in scientific literature -- a threat to scientific integrity (open access)
Elsevier ranks third! The first one, i.e. BAKIS, appears to be a dubious publisher anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment