Correspondence | Published:

Scientific record

Speed publication of self-corrections

Nature volume 533, page 321 (19 May 2016) | Download Citation

Kudos to Daniele Fanelli for suggesting that authors deserve credit for retracting papers that result from honest errors (Nature 531, 415; 2016). Journal editors and co-authors can be helpful, collaborative and efficient — as they were in the case of two papers I retracted in 2013 (see However, this is not always the case.

The editorial process can often be lengthy. After waiting for more than two years for the formal resolution of a potential notice of error for another, related paper, I decided to use PubMed Commons to alert the scientific community (see

Authors themselves can be uncertain about how to correct the scientific record promptly, even when they suspect errors. They might have moved on to new projects, key contributors may have left the lab, or perhaps they are reluctant to use precious funds to repeat old experiments. Maybe the materials that are needed to repeat the experiments are no longer available, or the authors are slow to reach a consensus on appropriate action.

In my view, these problems could be rectified by standard guidelines for researchers, editors and databases on how to handle self-reported amendments. Terms that are more nuanced than 'correction' or 'retraction' — such as 'notice of concern' or 'error alert' — could be used for situations that are less clear-cut.

Author information


  1. University of California, Davis, USA.

    • Pamela Ronald


  1. Search for Pamela Ronald in:

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pamela Ronald.

About this article

Publication history




By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Newsletter Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing