M Castillo1, M Northam, K E Halm. 1. Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA. castillo@med.unc.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Assessment of postpublication errors in peer-reviewed journals is difficult and the numbers and types are unknown. We reviewed published errata in major clinical imaging journals in an attempt to understand the numbers and sources of errors in published articles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five clinical imaging journals with the highest IFs were searched on-line using the terms "erratum" or "errata" anywhere in the title, abstract, or author listing for a total of 5 years. Each erratum was reviewed and categorized by type and source of responsibility. RESULTS: The following journals were assessed: JNM, Radiology, AJNR, AJR, and RadioGraphics. There were a total of 158 total errata and each was placed in 1 of the following categories: typographical (94), factual (6), image-related (48), statistical calculation (7), or serious foundational errors (3). Errata were also labeled as author (107) or journal responsibility (51). One hundred forty-eight errata were categorized as minor (typographical, factual, and image-related) and 10 as major (statistical calculation, foundational errors). CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of the 8910 articles published by the 5 journals during the study period, revealed the number of minor and major errors were few, 1.66% and 0.11%, respectively. Of these errors, 93.7% were considered minor and 6.3% major. Most major errors were judged to be the responsibility of the authors, whereas most minor ones were the responsibility of the journals.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Assessment of postpublication errors in peer-reviewed journals is difficult and the numbers and types are unknown. We reviewed published errata in major clinical imaging journals in an attempt to understand the numbers and sources of errors in published articles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five clinical imaging journals with the highest IFs were searched on-line using the terms "erratum" or "errata" anywhere in the title, abstract, or author listing for a total of 5 years. Each erratum was reviewed and categorized by type and source of responsibility. RESULTS: The following journals were assessed: JNM, Radiology, AJNR, AJR, and RadioGraphics. There were a total of 158 total errata and each was placed in 1 of the following categories: typographical (94), factual (6), image-related (48), statistical calculation (7), or serious foundational errors (3). Errata were also labeled as author (107) or journal responsibility (51). One hundred forty-eight errata were categorized as minor (typographical, factual, and image-related) and 10 as major (statistical calculation, foundational errors). CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of the 8910 articles published by the 5 journals during the study period, revealed the number of minor and major errors were few, 1.66% and 0.11%, respectively. Of these errors, 93.7% were considered minor and 6.3% major. Most major errors were judged to be the responsibility of the authors, whereas most minor ones were the responsibility of the journals.