| Abstract: | Objective:This research measures the effectiveness of the practice of correction and republication of invalidated articles in the biomedical literature by analyzing the rate of citation of the flawed and corrected versions of scholarly articles over time. If the practice of correction and republication is effective, then the incidence of citation of flawed versions should diminish over time and increased incidence of citation of the republication should be observed.Methods:This is a bibliometric study using citation analysis and statistical analysis of pairs of flawed and corrected articles in MEDLINE and Web of Science.Results:The difference between citation levels of flawed originals and corrected republications does not approach statistical significance until eight to twelve years post-republication. Results showed substantial variability among bibliographic sources in their provision of authoritative bibliographic information.Conclusions:Correction and republication is a marginally effective biblioremediative practice. The data suggest that inappropriate citation behavior may be partly attributable to author ignorance.Highlights- The citation of flawed articles occurs at a rate nearly equal to that of corrected versions.
- The practice of correction and republication is only marginally effective and does not prevent the continued citation of flawed articles post-correction, with the analysis finding only a slight reduction in the citation of flawed articles after publication of the corrected version.
- Neither MEDLINE nor Web of Science consistently alert users when dealing with corrected and republished literature.
Implications- The practice of correction and republication would be more effective if prominent sources of bibliographic information were more consistent in providing users with information about the status of corrected and republished articles and the existence of post-publication modifications to the literature.
- It is incumbent upon the scientific community to raise the profile of post-publication changes to the literature to prevent the wasteful and potentially tragic consequences of scientists and medical professionals applying flawed information. Failure to do so will surely result in a reduction of public trust in the reliability of the scientific literature and its users.
|
