Exclusive: PLOS ONE to correct 1,000 papers, add author proof step

The megajournal PLOS ONE will be correcting about 1,000 papers over the next few months, Retraction Watch has learned, and will add an author proof step – a first for the journal.

The corrections are for “errors in author names, affiliations, titles and references; to make minor updates to the acknowledgements, funding statements, and data availability statements, among other minor issues,” PLOS ONE head of communications David Knutson told us. He continued:

This batch of corrections does not reflect a recent change in the journal’s quality control standards or processes. Rather, we are clearing a backlog that accumulated during a 2-year period when minor corrections were deprioritized and resources were diverted to other areas. PLOS ONE is in the process of implementing an author proof step so that in the future such errors can be identified and addressed prior to publication.  

Longtime Retraction Watch readers may recall that in 2016, a researcher noted PLOS ONE’s correction rate was much higher than that at other journals. He and others chalked that up to the lack of an author proof stage, which is common at other journals. Knutson explained why the journal was reversing the policy:

We are moving toward adding this service to authors because the correction request volumes in recent years have tipped the balance to where we have decided to prioritize the resources and time needed for this step in order to preempt minor corrections and ensure readers get correct information at the time of publication. For a megajournal like PLOS ONE, this is not a trivial decision given the publication volume, resources required to support this service, and the impacts of this extra step on time-to-publication which is a priority for the journal.

PLOS ONE distinguishes “standard corrections” from “publication ethics corrections” such as this one that led to a retraction, Knutson said:

The standard corrections typically address reporting or typesetting errors such as typographical errors, broken links (e.g. to datasets with public repositories), or missing funding information. These are the types of corrections represented in the forthcoming large volume batches.

By contrast, publication ethics corrections (such as the one you referenced) address concerns raised about published articles, e.g. involving policy compliance, integrity, or scientific validity issues, which require a different editorial process and for which we may issue corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions depending on the nature, severity, and impact of the issues and the extent to which they can be addressed.

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, subscribe to our free daily digest or paid weekly updatefollow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, or add us to your RSS reader. If you find a retraction that’s not in The Retraction Watch Database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com.

Exclusive: PLOS ONE to retract more than 100 papers for manipulated peer review

In March, an editor at PLOS ONE noticed something odd among a stack of agriculture manuscripts he was handling. One author had submitted at least 40 manuscripts over a 10-month period, much more than expected from any one person.  The editor told the ethics team at the journal about the anomaly, and they started an … Continue reading Exclusive: PLOS ONE to retract more than 100 papers for manipulated peer review

8 years after three papers are flagged — and after losing original correspondence — PLOS ONE retracts

A group of nutrition researchers in Canada led by the prominent diabetes scientist Emile Levy has lost three papers in PLOS ONE over concerns about the integrity of the data.  The concerns were raised nearly eight years ago by Elisabeth Bik, early in her career as a data sleuth.   In May 2014, Bik told us, … Continue reading 8 years after three papers are flagged — and after losing original correspondence — PLOS ONE retracts

Five studies linked to Cassava Sciences retracted

A researcher at the center of questions about a biotech’s controversial experimental treatment for Alzheimer’s disease has lost five papers in PLOS One.  The journal says it is retracting the articles, by Hoau-Yan Wang and colleagues, over concerns about the integrity of the data and the images in the papers. Wang does not agree with … Continue reading Five studies linked to Cassava Sciences retracted

An author asked for multiple corrections to a paper. PLOS ONE decided to retract it.

After an author requested a slew of changes to a published paper, journal editors reviewed the study and spotted “additional concerns” that led to its retraction. The study, titled “Pressure regulated basis for gene transcription by delta-cell micro-compliance modeled in silico: Biphenyl, bisphenol and small molecule ligand models of cell contraction-expansion,” was published in PLOS … Continue reading An author asked for multiple corrections to a paper. PLOS ONE decided to retract it.

The one that got away: Researchers retract fish genome paper after species mix-up

A group of researchers in Canada has retracted their 2018 paper on the gene sequence of the Arctic charr — a particularly hearty member of the Salmonidae family that includes salmon and trout — after discovering that the sample they’d used for their analysis was from a different kind of fish. The paper, “The Arctic … Continue reading The one that got away: Researchers retract fish genome paper after species mix-up

“There can be no justification for such studies”: Paper on artificial eyes for dogs earns expression of concern

A journal has issued an expression of concern for a 2020 paper by researchers in Korea who have used 3-D printing to create artificial eyes for dogs. The study triggered a slew of critical comments from readers, who were outraged by the ethics of the research and what they saw as inadequate protections for the … Continue reading “There can be no justification for such studies”: Paper on artificial eyes for dogs earns expression of concern

PLOS ONE retracts paper purporting to be about lung ultrasound for COVID-19 but that had suspicious overlap with pre-pandemic article

PLOS ONE has retracted a paper on pneumonia in people with Covid-19 after the authors could not allay concerns about the integrity of their data.  The article, “Lung ultrasound score in establishing the timing of intubation in COVID-19 interstitial pneumonia: A preliminary retrospective observational study,” appeared in September and was written by a group from … Continue reading PLOS ONE retracts paper purporting to be about lung ultrasound for COVID-19 but that had suspicious overlap with pre-pandemic article

U Maryland virus researcher up to 13 retractions

A veterinary researcher at the University of Maryland has lost seven papers for problematic images and other issues, bringing his retraction total to 13.  Siba Samal, who studies viruses and vaccines, lost four of his articles in March after journals determined that figures in the papers were unreliable. And he was a co-author on papers … Continue reading U Maryland virus researcher up to 13 retractions

COVID-19 pneumonia paper earns expression of concern — for being similar to a pre-pandemic article

Researchers in China have received an expression of concern for a recent paper on COVID-19 pneumonia after editors were alerted to suspicious similarities between the tables in the article and those in a 2018 study by members of the same group. In case you missed that: The pandemic started long after 2018. The article, “Lung … Continue reading COVID-19 pneumonia paper earns expression of concern — for being similar to a pre-pandemic article