Amending published articles: time to rethink retractions and corrections?

Abstract

Academic publishing is evolving and our current system of correcting research post-publication is failing, both ideologically and practically. It does not encourage researchers to engage in necessary post-publication changes in a consistent way. Worse yet, post-publication ‘updates’ can be misconstrued as punishments or admissions of misconduct. We propose a different model that publishers of research can apply to the content they publish, ensuring that any post-publication amendments are seamless, transparent and propagated to all the countless places online where descriptions of research appear. At the center of our proposal is use of the neutral term “amendment” to describe all forms of post-publication change to an article. We lay out a straightforward and consistent process that applies to each of three types of amendment that differ only in the extent to which the study is amended: minor, major, and complete. This proposed system supports the dynamic nature of the research process itself as researchers continue to refine or extend the work, and removes the emotive climate particularly associated with retractions and corrections to published work. It allows researchers to cite and share the most up-to-date and complete versions of articles with certainty, and gives decision makers access to the most up-to-date information. Crucially, however, we do not underestimate the importance of investigations of potential misconduct. This proposal allows two interrelated processes - amendment of articles and investigation of misconduct - to be uncoupled temporally, allowing a more rapid correction of the literature at a journal while institutional investigations take place, without either having to follow the others’ timeline.