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 update, follow 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.
