ArticleScientometrics2021
Pandemic publication: correction and erratum in COVID-19 publications.
Article in Scientometrics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Post-publication corrections of rheumatology articles: a comprehensive analysis.Advances in rheumatology (London, England) · 2026Article
- Examining retracted papers in the "Radiology, Nuclear Medicine, and Medical Imaging" category in the Web of Science database.Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- The Association of Research Quantitative Measures With Faculty Ranks of Australian and New Zealand Dental Schools.Cureus · 2023Article
- Delivering on NIH data sharing requirements: avoiding Open Data in Appearance Only.BMJ health & care informatics · 2023Review
- Retracted Covid-19 articles: significantly more cited than other articles within their journal of origin.Scientometrics · 2023Article
- Between panic and motivation: did the first wave of COVID-19 affect scientific publishing in Mediterranean countries?Scientometrics · 2022Article
- The influence of Covid-19 on publications in economics: bibliometric evidence from five working paper series.Scientometrics · 2022Article
- The Most Widely Disseminated COVID-19-Related Scientific Publications in Online Media: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Top 100 Articles with the Highest Altmetric Attention Scores.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Research on Covid-19: a disruptive phenomenon for bibliometrics.Scientometrics · 2021Article
- Health Care Providers' Trusted Sources for Information About COVID-19 Vaccines: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR infodemiologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This commentary identifies and characterizes correction and erratum in COVID-19 publications with a scientometric approach by considering their rate of growth, reasons for correction, the time-span between publishing the original and corrected versions, as well as their citation status in four questions. It also suggestions to solve the current issues regarding indexing, retrieving, publishing, and research evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.