3 ms·

Or, alternately, since it's a minor fix, you could just issue an errata, which is a thing journals do all the time.

• Retric 12y ago
  Sure, but the root problem IMO that still leads to a wide range of perverse incentives. Science has a huge push to be the first to publish and little emphasis on accuracy. Which leads to a lot of crap being published making some disciplines nearly worthless.
  • Fomite 12y ago
    And suggesting that if a minor and immensely flexible non-error but simple lack of detail in a paper that could be instantly solved with errata will instead get it retracted is a major overreaction in the other direction. An emphasis on reproducibility is good. An emphasis on going back and making sure papers say what we think they said is good. Automatic retraction is like zero-tolerance policies in schools - you'll get absurd and entirely foreseeable outcomes from wanting to appear to be tough, and not actually solve the problem of a screwy incentive system. That a paper that can be reproduced and be fixed with a minor errata, from authors that were fully cooperative with the replicating study, is the one being pointed at for that kind of treatment is illustrative of exactly that problem.