Embedded Files
Appraisal of: "Ortega, J. L. (2021). The relationship and incidence of three editorial notices in PubPeer: Errata, expressions of concern, and retractions. Learned Publishing, 34(2), 164–174. "
Appraisal of: "Ortega, J. L. (2021). The relationship and incidence of three editorial notices in PubPeer: Errata, expressions of concern, and retractions. Learned Publishing, 34(2), 164–174. "
Reviewer(s):
Alan Lovell
Sophie Robinson
MS Copilot
Full Reference:
Ortega, J. L. (2021). The relationship and incidence of three editorial notices in PubPeer: Errata, expressions of concern, and retractions. Learned Publishing, 34(2), 164–174. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1339.
Short description:
This study investigates the incidence, relationships, and time delays of three types of editorial notices—errata, expressions of concern, and retractions—using data from the post-publication peer review platform PubPeer. A dataset of 39,449 publications was analyzed, including 2,308 errata, 189 expressions of concern, and 1,531 retractions. The study employed statistical methods to assess overlaps between notice types, publication delays, and distribution in different disciplines and journals.
Findings reveal minimal overlap between the three notice types, with only a small percentage of errata leading to expressions of concern or retractions. Editorial notices are most frequent in life and health sciences, particularly in biochemistry and oncology journals. The average delay for issuing notices ranges from over 3 years for errata to more than 6 years for expressions of concern. PubPeer coverage is biased toward biomedical disciplines, which may influence the observed distribution of editorial notices.
Limitations stated by the author(s):
The use of PubPeer as a data source may introduce bias, as it is not a bibliographic database but a journal club focused on post-publication critique.
PubPeer is disproportionately focused on biomedical disciplines, underrepresenting physical sciences.
Editorial notices may be inconsistently indexed or linked across databases, affecting data completeness.
Limitations stated by the reviewer(s):
The reliance on PubPeer may limit generalizability to broader publishing practices.
The analysis does not explore the motivations or editorial processes behind issuing notices in depth.
The classification of disciplines and journals may oversimplify complex publication dynamics.
Study Type:
Quantitative Descriptive Study (Bibliometric Analysis)
Related Chapters:
Tags:
Retractions
Page updated
Report abuse