Public exposure leads to an increase in corrections to the scientific record

April 3, 2014

Individuals who wish to identify potential problems in the scientific literature can either choose to report their grievances privately (with the expectation that the issue will be appropriately handled) or they can post their accusations publicly. Clearly there are many reasons for dealing with unproven and potentially damaging allegations privately, however a new study suggests that when this route is followed a much smaller percentage of the allegations result in a correction to the literature.

The study, published today in PeerJ, was conducted by Paul S. Brookes, an associate professor of anesthesiology at the University of Rochester Medical Center in upstate NY. Brookes examined the status of nearly 500 scientific articles which were submitted to an anonymous blog which he ran during 2012, devoted to highlighting potential problems in published life sciences articles. Some 274 of these papers were blogged about, describing their problems in detail. However, on a further 223 papers never saw the light of day, due to the blog being shuttered by legal threats in early 2013. Comparing these two sets of papers for which concerns were voiced – i.e. 'public' and 'private' sets – revealed striking differences in their current status.

Despite all the problems having been reported to the journals in question, on average the publicly discussed papers were retracted or corrected 7-fold more than those for which the allegations were never publicized. This was despite similar properties between the paper sets, including the number of alleged problems per paper, the impact factor of the journals they were published in, and the number of lab' groups they originated from. Brookes says that "although a lot of people have assumed that shining more light leads to more action, no-one has actually tested this hypothesis".

In addition to more corrections and retractions, the blogged-about papers saw more combined action on the papers of particular laboratory groups. In other words, if a laboratory group had one paper with problems requiring action by a journal, this was associated with more actions on their other papers. Brookes suggests that editors may be more inclined to act on a paper if they see the sum-total of a particular lab group's problems, whereas an isolated paper may not be deemed important enough to act on, if corroborating evidence about other papers from the same group remains hidden.

Brookes was quick to highlight some important caveats to his study. First, the small sample size, focused mainly on image data in the life-sciences, makes it unclear if these findings are generalizable to the scientific literature at large. Second, due to the nature of the data collection, and the fact that the raw data set for the study is essentially a list of problems which could be interpreted as specific allegations of scientific misconduct, the study is unlikely to be repeated.

The study has some important implications for the burgeoning field of "post-publication peer review", which encompasses a number of initiatives, some of which allow their users to leave anonymous comments about any published . These efforts and a number of blogs on the subject have drawn criticism, but results such as those of Brookes' study suggest that these approaches can result in a greater rate of corrections to the scientific literature. Brookes described the current system for post-publication peer review as a work in progress, stating "there's a need for this type of discussion, but the jury is still out on exactly what the best system is, who should be allowed to comment, will they be afforded anonymity, and of course who will pay for and police all this activity".

Explore further: Data are lost to science at 'astonishing rate'

More information: Brookes (2014), Internet publicity of data problems in the bioscience literature correlates with enhanced corrective action. PeerJ 2:e313; DOI: 10.7717/peerj.313

Related Stories

Data are lost to science at 'astonishing rate'

December 19, 2013

New evidence reported in the journal Current Biology on December 19 confirms long-held fears about the fate of scientific data. Careful evaluation of more than 500 randomly selected studies found that the original data behind ...

Scientific misconduct is real, but rare

February 14, 2013

(—Richard Primack, Boston University professor of biology and editor-in-chief of the journal Biological Conservation, observes in the current issue of that publication that while instances of scientific misconduct ...

Nobel winning scientist to boycott top science journals

December 10, 2013

( —Randy Schekman winner (with colleagues) of the Nobel Prize this year in the Physiology or Medicine category for his work that involved describing how materials are carried to different parts of cells, has stirred ...

Recommended for you

Averaging the wisdom of crowds

December 12, 2017

The best decisions are made on the basis of the average of various estimates, as confirmed by the research of Dennie van Dolder and Martijn van den Assem, scientists at VU Amsterdam. Using data from Holland Casino promotional ...

Genetics preserves traces of ancient resistance to Inca rule

December 12, 2017

The Chachapoyas region was conquered by the Inca Empire in the late 15th century. Knowledge of the fate of the local population has been based largely on Inca oral histories, written down only decades later after the Spanish ...

Violence a matter of scale, not quantity, researchers show

December 11, 2017

Anthropologists have debated for decades whether humans living in tribal communities thousands of years ago were more or less violent than societies today. Researchers at the University of Notre Dame wonder if the question ...


Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.