The existence of stealth corrections in scientific literature -- a threat to scientific integrity (2409.06852v1)

Abstract: Introduction: Thorough maintenance of the scientific record is needed to ensure the trustworthiness of its content. This can be undermined by a stealth correction, which is at least one post-publication change made to a scientific article, without providing a correction note or any other indicator that the publication was temporarily or permanently altered. In this paper we provide several examples of stealth corrections in order to demonstrate that these exist within the scientific literature. As far as we are aware, no documentation of such stealth corrections was previously reported in the scientific literature. Methods: We identified stealth corrections ourselves, or found already reported ones on the public database pubpeer.com or through social media accounts of known science sleuths. Results: In total we report 131 articles that were affected by stealth corrections and were published between 2005 and 2024. These stealth corrections were found among multiple publishers and scientific fields. Conclusion: and recommendations Stealth corrections exist in the scientific literature. This needs to end immediately as it threatens scientific integrity. We recommend the following: 1) Tracking all changes to the published record by all publishers in an open, uniform and transparent manner, preferably by online submission systems that log every change publicly, making stealth corrections impossible; 2) Clear definitions and guidelines on all types of corrections; 3) Support sustained vigilance of the scientific community to publicly register stealth corrections.

• The paper reveals that stealth corrections, made without formal notices, undermine the reliability of the scientific record.
• It identifies 131 affected articles, with 92 instances involving content changes across major publishers.
• The study recommends implementing open tracking systems and strict guidelines to restore trust in scientific publications.

The Existence of Stealth Corrections in Scientific Literature - A Threat to Scientific Integrity

Overview

The paper "The existence of stealth corrections in scientific literature - a threat to scientific integrity" by René Aquarius, Floris Schoeters, Nick Wise, Alex Glynn, and Guillaume Cabanac presents an insightful exploration into a subtle yet critical issue affecting scientific publications. Stealth corrections are changes made to published articles without any formal indication or notice, such as an erratum or corrigendum. This practice undermines the integrity of the scientific record by obscuring the modifications made post-publication.

Key Findings

The paper identified 131 articles affected by stealth corrections, spreading across various publishers and disciplines. The publishers most implicated included BAKIS Productions LTD, MDPI, and Elsevier, among others. Stealth corrections were categorized mainly into changes in content, changes in the record of editorial process, changes in author information, and changes in additional information. The most common type, comprising 92 instances, involved changes in content.

Furthermore, the paper highlights that stealth corrections often remain undetected due to the lack of systematic tracking. Notably, only a small fraction of the articles initially subjected to stealth corrections eventually received official correction notices, or were reverted to their original versions.

Implications

The findings of this paper raise significant concerns about the maintenance of scientific integrity. When modifications to published articles are made without formal documentation, it erodes trust in the scientific literature. This is particularly problematic in cases involving serious issues such as image or data manipulation, where the lack of a correction notice can mislead future readers into believing the article was originally free from errors.

The implications are both practical and theoretical:

• Practical Implications: Researchers, publishers, and readers need more robust mechanisms to ensure transparency and trustworthiness in scientific publications. This includes developing systems that publicly log all post-publication changes, thus preventing stealth corrections.
• Theoretical Implications: The existence of stealth corrections calls for a reevaluation of editorial and publication practices and guidelines. It emphasizes the need for clear definitions and guidelines on all types of post-publication changes to preserve the integrity of the scientific record.

Recommendations

To mitigate the issue of stealth corrections, the authors recommend several actions:

1. Tracking All Changes Publicly: All publishers should implement an open, uniform, and transparent system to log every change made post-publication.
2. Clear Definitions and Guidelines: The scientific community and publishers should establish and adhere to clear guidelines regarding all types of corrections.
3. Sustained Vigilance: The scientific community should remain vigilant and continuously monitor and report any instances of stealth corrections.

Future Developments

The paper paves the way for future research into the mechanisms and extent of stealth corrections across different fields. It also calls for the development of more advanced technologies and systems to detect and document these changes automatically. In the context of rapidly evolving publication practices, particularly with preprints and preliminary versions becoming more prevalent, it is crucial to ensure every change, regardless of the publication stage, is documented transparently.

Moreover, the paper suggests an ongoing collaborative effort within the scientific community to address and rectify this issue. This could include the creation of databases and platforms similar to PubPeer, where researchers can report and monitor stealth corrections effectively.

Conclusion

Stealth corrections present a significant threat to the integrity of scientific publications. By obscuring post-publication changes, they compromise the trustworthiness of the scientific record. The paper by Aquarius et al. calls for immediate and concerted actions from publishers, editors, and the broader scientific community to establish transparent, uniform practices for documenting all post-publication changes. Through sustained vigilance and collaborative efforts, the scientific community can uphold the integrity and reliability of its published literature.