RESUMEN

In the article "Point-of-care blood glucose testing: post-market performance assessment of the Accu-Chek Inform II hospital-use glucose meter," published in the Terapevticheskii Arkhiv journal, Vol. 95, No.12, 2023 (DOI: 10.26442/00403660.2023.12.202522), errors were made: the term "measurements at the place of treatment" was changed, as well as the section "Conflict of interest." At the request of the authors' team, errors in the conflict of interest and the wording of the term have been corrected, and the section "Information about the authors" has been updated. The publisher replaced the original version of the published article with the corrected one; the information on the website was also corrected. Correct text of the section "Conflict of interest": Conflict of interest. All authors are not employees or consultants of Roche Diagnostics and have not received any compensation from Roche Diagnostics. Correct wording of the term in Russian: "измерения по месту лечения". Changes were made to the title of the article in Russian: "Измерения глюкозы по месту лечения: пострегистрационное испытание госпитального глюкометра Акку-Чек Информ II", the text of the abstract, keywords, citation, in the text of the article, and abbreviations. Information of the place of work has been updated: Center for Laboratory Diagnostics of the Russian Children Clinical Hospital, a Branch of the Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University. The publisher apologizes to readers and authors for the errors and is confident that the correction of errors will ensure the correct perception and interpretation of the results of the study described in the text.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic spurred publication of a rapid proliferation of studies on potential therapeutic agents. While important for the advancement of clinical care, pressure to collect, analyze, and report data in an expedited manner could potentially increase the rate of important errors, some of which would be captured in published errata. We hypothesized that COVID-19 therapeutic studies published in the early years of the pandemic would be associated with a high rate of published errata and that, within these errata, there would be a high prevalence of serious errors. METHODS: We performed a review of published errata associated with empirical studies of COVID-19 treatments. Errata were identified via a MEDLINE and Embase search spanning January 2020 through September 2022. Errors located within each published erratum were characterized by location within publication, error type, and error seriousness. RESULTS: Of 47 studies on COVID-19 treatments with published errata, 18 met inclusion criteria. Median time from publication of the original article to publication of the associated erratum was 76 days (range, 12-511 days). A majority of errata addressed issues with author attribution or conflict of interest disclosures (39.5%) or numerical results (25.6%). Only one erratum contained a serious error: a typographical error which could have misled readers into believing that the treatment in question had serious adverse effects when in fact it did not. CONCLUSIONS: Despite accelerated publication times, we found among studies of COVID-19 treatments the majority of errata (17/18) reported minor errors that did not lead to misinterpretation of the study results. Retractions, an indicator of scientific misdirection even more concerning than errata, were beyond the scope of this review.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

[This corrects the article on p. 100 in vol. 12, PMID: 36196438.].

RESUMEN

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.11604/pamj.2022.43.74.35639.].

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1177/20458940211015823.].

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The literature on scientific publication errors in medical research is limited, and no studies on emergency medicine publications have been conducted yet. This study aimed to investigate the characteristics of the publication errors in emergency medicine literature. METHODS: This bibliometric study reviewed intervened publication errors in the manuscripts of seven high-impact emergency medicine journals from 2000 to 2020, covering twenty years, and evaluated the corrections in the forms of an erratum, corrigendum, addendum, and retracted papers. The detected publication error rate and the trend, error severity, and error types were calculated. RESULTS: We detected 257 intervened scientific papers consisting of 251 corrections due to one or more publication errors and six retractions. Authors were the primary source of the errors (93.2%). Most of the errors were in the author attribution section (40.5%). The published errors of 7.2% had an impact on the paper's conclusion. Simple typographic errors were the most common error type (62.5%). The corrected publication error rate was 1.3%, with a steady trend over the twenty years. CONCLUSIONS: Publications errors are inevitable, but it is possible to minimize them. The number of corrections in emergency medicine literature is at a low rate and show many similarities with the previous literature.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

This erratum reports on a technical error that was discovered in Study 2 of Peer et al. (2021). Because of this technical error, some specific findings on participants' proclivity for dishonesty reported in the paper have been found incorrect. We detail the error, which only affected female participants, and its impact on the findings and report on the reanalyzed findings accounting for the error. The new findings do not change the conclusions provided in the paper, and show again that participants from MTurk are more likely to engage in dishonest behavior than participants from Prolific or CloudResearch.

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)