Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
J. Sabine (1985)
The Error Rate in Biological Publication: A Preliminary Survey*Science, Technology, & Human Values, 10
M. Thomsen, David Resnik (1995)
The effectiveness of the erratum in avoiding error propagation in physicsScience and Engineering Ethics, 1
M. Scarlat (2017)
Erratum, corrigenda et emendatio or "mistake, correction and amendment"International Orthopaedics, 41
R. Steen (2010)
Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing?Journal of Medical Ethics, 37
Richard Noorden (2011)
Science publishing: The trouble with retractionsNature, 478
A. Molckovsky, M. Vickers, P. Tang (2009)
Characterization of published errors in high-impact oncology journals.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 27 15_suppl
J. Silva (2016)
An Error is an Error… is an Erratum: The Ethics of not Correcting Errors in the Science LiteraturePublishing Research Quarterly, 32
Emily Poworoznek (2003)
Linking of errata: Current practices in online physical sciences journalsJ. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 54
J. Silva, J. Dobránszki (2016)
Notices and Policies for Retractions, Expressions of Concern, Errata and Corrigenda: Their Importance, Content, and ContextScience and Engineering Ethics, 23
A. Neale, J. Northrup, R. Dailey, Ellen Marks, J. Abrams (2007)
Correction and use of biomedical literature affected by scientific misconductScience and Engineering Ethics, 13
Tianwei He (2013)
Retraction of global scientific publications from 2001 to 2010Scientometrics, 96
This paper aims to investigate the characterization of corrections to the papers published in Library and Information Science (LIS) journals during 2006-2015. It studies the frequency and location of the published errors, time interval between the publication of the original papers and their corrections, as well as associations between journals’ impact factors (IF) and their correction rates.Design/methodology/approachThe population of the study comprised of 369 errata published in 50 LIS journals. The data were obtained from Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science (WoS) and Journal Citation Reports.FindingsThe results of the study revealed a correction rate of 0.37 per cent for LIS journals, which is substantially lower than that of 124 subject categories with at-least one erratum in the WoS. Among the countries with the highest number of errata in LIS journals, the USA ranked first, followed by China and England. However, the greatest share of errata to overall LIS publications of the country was seen in Kazakhstan, Russia and Botswana. Results showed that no statistically significant relationships existed between the journals’ IF and their correction rates. The highest proportion of errors published in LIS literature was occurred in authors’ information, references, tables and figures. Moreover, the average time from publication of the original articles to their corresponding errata was found to be 8.7 months.Social implicationsCorrecting the unintentional mistakes in scholarly articles is an ethical responsibility of researchers and journal editors.Originality/valueThe current research tries to investigate the characteristics of errata in the LIS field.
Collection and Curation – Emerald Publishing
Published: Jul 1, 2019
Keywords: Library and information science; Corrections; Errata; Erratum; Peer-review process; Published errors
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.