After several publishing experiences, correcting minor errors occurs in the proofing stage. However, every once and awhile errors can pass by authorship teams and proofing/editing teams. Many errors are never formally addressed but when they are what are standard means to manage them?
Most personal experiences suggest that additional proofing edits take care of most author/journal requirements prior to in print publication. In some cases, issuing an erratum could be a means to provide for additional clarification or corrections. After review of colleagues and COPE guidelines, retraction is not a means to be applied to correct for non-scientific errors/editing mistakes.
Very interested to hear about personal experiences, especially those that serve as editors. I am trying to refine a reasonable editorial 'cap' and approach.
Dear Cory Jensen, normally no further corrections can be made after the corrected page proofs have been returned and the paper has been published online. That's why we take the proofreading quite seriously and try to have the proofs carefully read by all co-authors if possible. Minor errors which are overlooked at this point will persist, but that's the way it goes. I see no need for additional proofreading prior to print publication.
Dear colleague,
My experience as an editor is that I don't see the papers anymore during the proof-stage. so after acceptance (which is done by me), the secretary of the publisher sends the proofs out to the authors and they publish it after the approval (with corrections) by the authors. I am not involved anymore in this part of the process after acceptance. it may depend on disciplinary background, but I have experience with Q1 journals like Journal of Cleaner Production and Journal of Business Ethics. hope this helps
https://www.nature.com/nature-research/editorial-policies/correction-and-retraction-policy
Frank T. Edelmann , thank you for your contribution. You made me think of several confounding factors.
I have noticed that some journals provide for a single review (not very practical) but in practice have found that two reviews are necessary, i.e. one for the proof team to format and a second to ensure changes are correct.
I have also experienced that multiple author papers that involve teams challenged by available technology or means of communication can be a challenge to meet requested timelines for review, how would you handle that? Is there a recommended coordination software platform/application? Further, coordinating a single repository can also be a challenge for everyone to edit together.
Finally, what do you think about proof-reading quality. In some cases it seems like proofing didn't even read the article to coordinate elements correctly. With the demand that peer review submissions be of high written quality, shouldn't proof teams be equality skilled in such a critical aspect of the publication process?
Frank T. Edelmann and Vincent Blok , thank you for your comments. I think your perspectives present ideal situations and one end of the spectrum where nothing is required as acceptable 'ready for print' articles.
Abdelkader Mohamed Elsayed , thank you for pointing out guidance when peer review and publication DOES NOT necessarily proceed perfectly. My question was geared toward the topics in this space, e.g. managing proofing errors that complicate a readers understanding. For example, per the guidelines an EIC would help identify what would be acceptable means to proceed with and publish. Then typically authors, the EIC and a publisher coordinate an outcome. It has been suggested that COPE guidance is a widely utilized standard in these cases? Any thoughts on additional guidance?
Don't worry too much about minor errors which might occur at the proofing stage. These can be largely corrected if the proofreading is done carefully by different persons. As the author who wrote the manuscript, I more easily overlook certain errors as I know what it should read.
Bruno Chrcanovic , thanks for the response. This is off focus of this particular question, however relevant to discussions in ResearchGate related to predatory journal practices. Interested readers should seek out questions related to predatory journal identification or propose new discussions.
Your response indicates to me that there is needs to be a means to validate a journal/publisher before submitting research with some sort of new metric. What do you thin that metric could be?
Advice I was given and follow to this date is to simply not submit to journals/publishers that require a publication fees. Open access options can complicate this advice a bit. Definitely an open issue.
Dear Bruno Chrcanovic, I fully agree with Cory Jensen in that your post is somewhat misplaced in this particular discussion. It would, however, be a useful contribution to our discussion on "How to eliminate predatory journals":
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_eliminate_predatory_journals
Sorry, but just putting the word out Cory Jensen . We researchers have to help each other.
I do not think it is necessary to be oversensitive about minor mistakes but we should go step by step. I we do it even the smaller errors will get corrected at proof reading stages. Thank you
Bruno Chrcanovic no problem or concern. Your point is valid I get notifications from RG all the time on the similar topic of Predatory Journals. I wanted to point it out to you that deep forums exist. We need solutions!
Dor Prasad Bhandari , I agree that proofing should be robust but have found that not to be the case all of the time. I make the call for proofing and a final review. It appears that errors can occur with a single combined proof/edit/review. There is no way to check if corrections are accurate in such a case.
Alli Noah , I am not sure I understand your comment. In practice I have seen several cases where editorial leadership notices research teams using very similar language from previous publications. In these cases reducing % similarity and clarifying novel content are the constraints I have seen applied. Reporting the same results twice has not been acceptable.
Thank all for comments!
There are now certified sites and institutions to play this role.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Correction