Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More information

Difference between revisions of "Teixeira 2022 J Gen Philos Sci"

From Bioblast
(Created page with "{{Publication |title=Teixeira da Silva JA (2022) A synthesis of the formats for correcting erroneous and fraudulent academic literature, and associated challenges. J Gen Philo...")
Β 
Line 9: Line 9:
}}
}}
{{Labeling
{{Labeling
|additional=Gentle Science
|additional=Ambiguity crisis, Gentle Science
}}
}}

Revision as of 11:33, 3 December 2023

Publications in the MiPMap
Teixeira da Silva JA (2022) A synthesis of the formats for correcting erroneous and fraudulent academic literature, and associated challenges. J Gen Philos Sci 53:583-99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-022-09607-4

Β» PMID: 35669840 Open Access

Teixeira da Silva JA (2022) J Gen Philos Sci

Abstract: 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.

β€’ Bioblast editor: Gnaiger E


Labels:






Ambiguity crisis, Gentle Science