Fiche du document
5 mars 2025
- ISIDORE Id: 10670/1.57e455...
- hal: hal-04977852
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/grantAgreement//951393/EU/Nanobubbles: how, when and why does science fail to correct itself?/NanoBubbles
Sujets proches
Correctional services PenologyCiter ce document
Frédérique Bordignon, « Open repositories cannot ignore retractions and corrections », HALSHS : archive ouverte en Sciences de l’Homme et de la Société, ID : 10670/1.57e455...
Métriques
Partage / Export
Résumé
Open repositories were designed to enhance access to and visibility of academic outputs, offering a vital alternative to paywalled journals. Yet, their primary focus has remained on dissemination, with little attention paid to maintaining the accuracy and reliability of the scholarly record when errors or misconduct are discovered in published research.In those (rare) cases, journals issue editorial notices like expressions of concern, corrections, additions, errata, corrigenda, withdrawals, and retractions (considered as the most severe measure). Those editorial notices warn readers of issues with prior findings and also promote transparency around corrections to uphold the integrity and reliability of the scholarly record.My research sheds light on this significant issue: most repositories fail to update the status of publications that have been corrected or retracted after being deposited. A manually verified analysis of HAL, one of the world’s largest institutional repositories, revealed that 91% of retracted or corrected publications lacked any indication of their updated status. This glaring oversight leaves researchers and the public vulnerable to citing or relying on invalidated studies.Link to blog post
