Improving the peer-review process and editorial quality: key errors escaping the review and editorial process in top scientific journals.

ABSTRACT: We apply a novel mistake index to assess trends in the proportion of corrections published between 1993 and 2014 in Nature, Science and PNAS. The index revealed a progressive increase in the proportion of corrections published in these three high-quality journals. The index appears to be independent of the journal impact factor or the number of items published, as suggested by a comparative analyses among 16 top scientific journals of different impact factors and disciplines. A more detailed analysis suggests that the trend in the time-to-correction increased significantly over time and also differed among journals (Nature 233 days; Science 136 days; PNAS 232 days). A detailed review of 1,428 errors showed that 60% of corrections were related to figures, authors, references or results. Acc

SUBMITTER: Margalida A 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4756748 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature