ArticlePLoS biology2022
Correction of scientific literature: Too little, too late!
Article in PLoS biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- High prevalence of articles with image-related problems in animal studies of subarachnoid hemorrhage and low rates of correction by publishers.PLoS biology · 2025Pooled it
- Randomized clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines are not designed to study non-specific effects on rare mortality.iScience · 2026Article
- A conference taught me that scientists and journalists must work together to protect research.Nature · 2026Article
- Concordance between European medicine agency good clinical practice inspections and medical literature: a meta-research survey.BMC medicine · 2025Article
- "Cake causes herpes?" - promiscuous dichotomisation induces false positives.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Better nanoscience through open, collaborative, and critical discussions.Materials horizons · 2024Review
- A structured, journal-led peer-review mentoring program enhances peer review training.Research integrity and peer review · 2024Article
- Is biomedical research self-correcting? Modelling insights on the persistence of spurious science.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- Raising concerns on questionable ethics approvals - a case study of 456 trials from the Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection.Research integrity and peer review · 2023Article
- Scientific Integrity Requires Publishing Rebuttals and Retracting Problematic Papers.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2023Article
- Protection of the human gene research literature from contract cheating organizations known as research paper mills.Nucleic acids research · 2022Review
- No evidence that mandatory open data policies increase error correction.Nature ecology & evolution · 2022Article
- Transparency and reporting characteristics of COVID-19 randomized controlled trials.BMC medicine · 2022Article
- Article
- Is the future of peer review automated?BMC research notes · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has highlighted the limitations of the current scientific publication system, in which serious post-publication concerns are often addressed too slowly to be effective. In this Perspective, we offer suggestions to improve academia's willingness and ability to correct errors in an appropriate time frame.
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.