Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Publishing Corrections of the Scholarly Record: Some Test Cases

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Correcting the Scholarly Record for Research Integrity

Part of the book series: Research Ethics Forum ((REFF,volume 6))

Abstract

This chapter examines the responses of editors and publishers who were presented with evidence of suspected plagiarism in a series of 14 articles and book chapters for one author of record. As the publications divide into those in philosophy and those in health communication, a comparison is possible between the manner in which different disciplines respond to evidence of suspected plagiarism. Using news reports as well as publicly issued statements from the home institutions of the author of record and of co-authors as a backdrop, I examine various textual parallels in light of the 12 published retractions, errata, and corrigenda that have been issued in these cases. Attention is given to the variety of text manipulations present in the articles and book chapters that have been subject to corrections by editors and publishers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This widespread practice of issuing corrections without an identifiable author has been subject to increased criticism in recent years (see Hu 2017; Xu and Hu 2018).

  2. 2.

    I have anonymized the retraction statement here; as published it identified the researcher by name.

  3. 3.

    Debora Weber-Wulff describes pawn sacrifice as: “there is a proper attribution of a sentence, but then the text copy continues on, copying the source for additional sentences or even paragraphs without making clear that this is the author of the source speaking and not the purported author” (2014: 10).

  4. 4.

    The republication of a philosophy paper within the same journal is not unprecedented, however. See Delaney 2007 and Delaney 2008, both of which appeared in Philosophical Studies . In that case, the latter paper appears to incorporate the former within consecutive years of the same journal, without attribution to the first.

  5. 5.

    For examples of errata in philosophy journals that contain a complete republication of an article in corrected form due to production errors (rather than author-generated errors), see Toh 2015: 333: “Prior to the original publication of this paper, a great number of page references were incorrectly changed at the production stage. The correct page numbers have been inserted in this erratum version of the paper”; King 2014: 3379: “A significant number of unfortunate errors have been identified in the above-mentioned article. The full corrected article is republished on the following pages and should be treated as definitive by the reader, replacing the earlier version”; Anonymous 2000c: 113: “Due to a technical error at the printing stage, certain characters, important to a proper understanding of the text, in the above-mentioned article failed to appear in the printed version. The correct version has been reprinted on the following pages.”

References

  • [—]. 1999. Die Kontroverse zwischen Platonikern und Aristotelikern im 15. Jahrhundsssert: Gemisthos Plethon – Georgios Trapezuntios – Kardinal Bessarion. In Philosophen der Renaissance, ed. Paul Richard Blum, 22–33. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. (Case 4.)

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2001. Subjectivity from a semiotic point of view. In Ecosemiotics: Studies in environmental semiosis, semiotics of the biocybernetic bodies, human/too human/post human, Nordic-Baltic Summer Institute for Semiotic and Structural Studies, Part IV, ed. Eero Tarasti, Richard Littlefield, Lotta Rossi, and Maija Rossi, 149–159. Imatra: International Semiotics Institute. [Retracted in: Martinelli 2018a and 2018b.] (Case 1.)

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2004. Subjectivity before and after Badiou. Subject Matters: A Journal of Communications and the Self 1 (2): 67–81. (Case 2.)

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2005. Being in accordance with oneself: Moral self-controversy in Plato and Aristotle. In Controversies and subjectivity, ed. Pierluigi Barrotta and Marcelo Dascal, 75–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. [Corrigendum in: Anonymous 2017b.] (Case 3.)

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2006a. The communication of diagnostic information by doctors to patients in the consultation. In Bordering biomedicine, ed. Vera Kalitzkus and Peter L. Twohig, 103–116. Leiden: Rodopi/Brill. [Retracted in: Anonymous 2016a.] (Case 8.)

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2006b. Maximizing health outcomes through optimal communication. Studies in Communication Sciences 6 (2): 215–232. [Retracted in: Anonymous 2017c.] (Case 10.)

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2006c. More than nation and knowledge: Cultural micro-diversity and organ donation in Switzerland. Patient Education and Counseling 64: 294–302. [Corrigendum in: Anonyous 2018c.] (Case 12.)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • [—], et al. 2007. Raising awareness of organ donation. Swiss Medical Weekly 137 (Supplement 155): 132–137. [Erratum in: Anonymous 2017a.] (Case 7.).

    Google Scholar 

  • [—]. 2008a. Media treatment of organ donation: A case study in Switzerland. In Social studies of health, illness and disease: Perspectives from the social sciences and the humanities, ed. Peter Twohig and Vera Kalitzkus, 229–243. Leiden: Brill/Rodopi. [Retracted in: Anonymous 2016b.] (Case 9.)

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2008b. Comments on ‘Strategic manoeuvring with the intention of the legislator in the justification of judicial decisions’. Argumentation 22.3: 355–357. [Retracted in: van Eemeren 2015a.] (Case 5.)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • [—], et al. 2008c. Arguing ‘for’ the patient: Informed consent and strategic maneuvering in doctor–patient interaction. Argumentation 22 (3): 423–432. [Erratum in: van Eemeren 2015b.] (Case 6.).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2009. Knowledge, information sources and awareness regarding breast cancer screening. Studies in Communication Sciences 9 (1): 249–264. [Corrigendum in: Anonymous 2017d.] (Case 11.).

    Google Scholar 

  • [—]. 2010a. Editor’s introduction. In Communication theory, 1, ed. [—], xxi–lxvi. SAGE Benchmarks in Communication. Los Angeles: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010b. The communication of diagnostic information by doctors to patients in the consultation. In Communication theory, 2, ed. [—], 71–83. SAGE Benchmarks in Communication (Los Angeles: SAGE. (Case 8*.)

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010c. George Gemistos Plethon (ca. 1360–1454), George of Trebizond (1396–1472), and Cardinal Bessarion (1403–1472): The controversy between Platonists and Aristotelians in the fifteenth century. In Philosophers of the Renaissance, ed. Paul Richard Blum, trans. Brian McNeil, 23–32. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press. (Case 4.)

    Google Scholar 

  • [—], et al. 2012. The concept of health literacy. In Science|environment|health: Towards a renewed pedagogy for science education, ed. Albert Zeyer and Regula Kyburz-Graber, 69–84. Dordrecht: Springer. [Erratum in Anonymous 2018a.] (Case 13.).

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. Differential appraisal of age thresholds for mammographic screening in Holland and Switzerland. Journal of Communication in Healthcare 8 (1): 32–44. [Erratum in Anonymous 2018b.] (Case 14.).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Annas, Julia. 1981. An introduction to Plato’s ‘Republic’. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anonymous. 1953. Erratum. The Philosophical Quarterly 3 (10): 96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1968. Erratum. Analysis 28 (5): 158.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1984. Erratum. Mind 93 (369): 154.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1989. Errata in the general index, volumes 1 to 50. The Thomist 53 (1): 171–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1990. Corrigendum. Phronesis 35 (2): 223.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1993a. Erratum. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 44 (2): 377.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1993b. Erratum. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 18 (3): 346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1998. Erratum. Business Ethics Quarterly 8 (3): 613–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1999a. Erratum. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 50 (2): 324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1999b. Erratum. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 50 (4): 791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2000a. Errata. Journal of the History of Ideas 61 (1): 158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2000b. Erratum. Mind 109 (433): 127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2000c. Erratum. Philosophical Studies 98 (3): 113.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2003. Errata. Idealistic Studies 33.2 (3): 237.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2009a. Errata. Theoria: Revista de Teoría, Historia y Fundamentos de la Ciencia 24 (1): 107–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2009b. Erratum. The Monist 92 (2): i.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012a. Erratum. The Monist 95 (1): 2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012b. Erratum. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 37 (5): 505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2013. Erratum. The Philosophical Quarterly 63 (253): 856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. Erratum. The Monist 97 (4): ii.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2016a. It has been brought to our attention [...]. Leiden: Brill. https://brill.com/abstract/title/27457. Accessed 6 July 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2016b. It has been brought to our attention [...]. Leiden: Brill. https://brill.com/view/title/27478. Accessed 6 July 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2016c. Corrigendum. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 41 (6): 699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2016d. Erratum/corrigendum: Expression of concern. The Journal of Physiology 594 (17): 5031–5032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2017a. Erratum. Swiss Medical Weekly 147 (14406): 1. https://smw.ch/en/resource/jf/journal/file/download/article/smw/en/smw.2017.14406/SMW14406.pdf. Accessed 6 July 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2017b. It was brought to our attention [...]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/cvs.1.05sch Accessed 6 July 2018.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2017c. Retraction. Studies in Communication Sciences 6 (2): 215. http://www.hope.uzh.ch/scoms/article/view/1603. Accessed 6 July 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2017d. Corrigendum/Scoms correction note. Studies in Communication Sciences 9 (1): 248A. http://www.hope.uzh.ch/scoms/article/view/1616. Accessed 6 July 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2017e. Addenda. Journal of the American Philosophical Association 3 (1): 127.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2017f. Erratum. Ergonomics 2: 175. https://doi.org/10.3998/ergo.12405314.0002.008 Accessed 6 July 2018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2017g. Erratum. Journal of Business Ethics 140 (3): 607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2017h. Erratum. Mind 126 (501): 319.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2017i. Erratum. Journal of Business Ethics 141 (2): 433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2017j. Erratum. Journal of Philosophical Logic 46 (5): 539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2017k. Editorial apology. The Heythrop Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/heyj.12834 Accessed 6 July 2018.

  • ———. 2018a. Erratum. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3949-1_11 Accessed 6 July 2018.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2018b. Corrigendum. Journal of Communication in Healthcare 11 (1): 81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2018c. Patient Education and Counseling. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2018.07.014. Accessed 30 Aug 2018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailin, Sidney C. 2011. Retraction of ‘A normalization theorem for set theory’. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 76 (3): 1096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, Jon, Paul Cobley, Nick Haeffner, and Jenny Harding. 2004. Response. Subject Matters: A Journal of Communications and the Self 1 (2): 83–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbour, Virginia, Theodora Bloom, Jennifer Lin, and Elizabeth Moylan. 2017. Amending published articles: Time to rethink retractions and corrections? bioRxiv archive. https://doi.org/10.1101/118356 Accessed 6 July 2018.

  • Besser, Avi, Marianne Amir, and Sharon Barkan. 2004. Who signs an organ transplant donor card? A study of personality and individual differences in a sample of Israeli university students. Personality and Individual Differences 36 (7): 1709–1723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blair, Ann. 2007. Errata lists and the reader as corrector. In Agent of change: Print culture studies after Elizabeth L. Eisenstein, ed. Sabrina Alcorn Baron, Eric N. Lindquist, and Eleanor F. Shevlin, 21–41. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, Leonard E. 1976. Optimist and recensionist: ‘Common errors’ or ‘common variations’? In Latin script and letters A. D. 400–900, ed. John J. O’Meara and Bernd Naumann, 264–274. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brill. 2014. Brill completes acquisition of editions Rodopi. Brill, June 12. https://brill.com/fileasset/downloads_static/static_investorrelations_brill_press_release_rodopi_12_june_2014_eng_final.pdf. Accessed 6 July 2018.

  • Buckner, Edward, and Jack Zupko (trans.). 2014. Duns Scotus on time and existence: The questions on Aristotle’s ‘De interpretatione’. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr, Thomas K. 1995. Only a God can save us. First Things 55: 57–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casati, Roberto. 2010. On publishing. Social Epistemology 24 (3): 191–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clouser, K. Danner. 1985. Approaching the logic of diagnosis. In Logic of discovery and diagnosis in medicine, ed. Kenneth F. Schaffner, 35–55. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobley, Paul, ed. 2006. Communication theories. Vol. 4. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, L. Jonathan. 1967. Corrigendum. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 17 (4): 352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • College van Bestuur van de Universiteit van Amsterdam, 2017. Besluit: Definitief oordeel op klacht. April 20. N. 2017cb0099. https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/PDF_2_University_of_Amsterdam.pdf. Accessed 6 July 2018.

  • Delaney, Neil Francis. 2007. A note on intention and the doctrine of double effect. Philosophical Studies 134 (2): 103–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2008. Two cheers for ‘closeness’: Terror, targeting and double effect. Philosophical Studies 137 (3): 335–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • René Descartes. 1984–1991. The philosophical writings of Descartes. Trans. John Cottingham, Robert Stoothhoff, Dugald Murdoch, and Anthony Kenny), 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, Harry. 2014. Corrigendum: Resolution of some paradoxes of propositions. Analysis 74 (4): 629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty, M.V. 2012. Review of: Philosophers of the Renaissance. The Thomist 76 (3): 473–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, Denis. 2001. Erratum. Philosophy and Literature 25 (1): iv. https://doi.org/10.1353/phl.2001.0019 Accessed 6 July 2018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, Frans H. 2015a. Retraction note. Argumentation 29 (4): 493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015b. Erratum. Argumentation 29 (4): 481–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elsevier. 2016. Policy and best practice: Errata & corrigenda. https://www.elsevier.com/editors/perk/policy-and-best-practice-errata-And-corrigenda. Accessed 6 July 2018.

  • Etkin, Adam, and Ivan Oransky. 2016/2017. Dopey dupe retractions: How publisher error hurts researchers. International Society of Managing and Technical Editors 9 (11): 12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fanelli, Daniele, John P.A. Ioannidis, and Steven Goodman. 2018. Improving the integrity of published science: An expanded taxonomy of retractions and corrections. European Journal of Clinical Investigation 48 (4): e12898. https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.12898 Accessed 6 July 2018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaifman, Haim. 2011. Erratum. Synthese 179 (3): 510–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gold, Stefan M., Karl-Heinz Schulz, and Uwe Koch. 2001. The organ donation process: Causes of the organ shortage and approaches to the solution: An analysis of the content and methods of available studies. Cologne: Federal Centre for Health Education. http://www.bzga.de/botmed_60809070.html. Accessed 6 July 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hafner, Urs. 2017. Hexenjagd im Reich der Vernunft. Neue Zürcher Zeitung, January 21. https://www.nzz.ch/feuilleton/plagiat-hexenjagd-im-reich-der-vernunft-ld.142092. Accessed 6 July 2018.

  • Hames, Irene. 2007. Peer review and manuscript management in scientific journals: Guidelines for good practice. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, Guangwei. 2017. Authorship of retraction notices: ‘If names are not rectified, then language will not be in accord with truth’. Publications 5 (2): 1–3. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications5020010 Accessed 6 July 2018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Illarietti, Davide. 2016. Plagio all’Usi: sospeso il prof. Ticino Online, August 29. http://www.tio.ch/News/Ticino/Attualita/1103037. Accessed 6 July 2018.

  • ———. 2018. Il docente dell’Usi ha copiato anche il Papa. Ticino Online, January 18. https://www.tio.ch/ticino/attualita/1236159/il-docente-dell-usi-ha-copiato-anche-il-papa. Accessed 6 July 2018.

  • Kenny, Anthony. 1988. The self. The Aquinas lecture, 1988. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, Nathan L. 2014. Erratum to: Perseverance as an intellectual virtue. Synthese 191 (15): 3779–3801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Patrick, and Robert P. George. 2009. Erratum.In Body-self dualism in contemporary ethics and politics, x. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackay, James. 2006. Comments on [—]. Studies in Communication Sciences 6 (2): 143–144. http://www.hope.uzh.ch/scoms/article/view/1620/463. Accessed 6 July 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macquarrie, John. 1994. Heidegger and Christianity: The Hensley Henson lectures, 1993–1994. London: SCM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, Adam, and Ivan Oransky. 2015. We gave bad advice: Better not contact authors first. Lab Times, November 22. http://www.labtimes.org/labtimes/ranking/dont/2015_06.lasso. Accessed 6 July 2018.

  • ———. 2017. Is there a retraction problem? And, if so, what can we do about it? In The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication, ed. Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Dan M. Kahan, and Dietram A. Scheufele, 119–126. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinelli, Dario. 2018a. Statement of retraction. International Semiotics Institute, January 8. https://www.facebook.com/isisemiotics/posts/880483692121348. Accessed 6 July 2018.

  • ———. 2018b. Concerning our statement of retraction. International Semiotics Institute, January 18. https://www.facebook.com/isisemiotics/posts/883179261851791. Accessed 6 July 2018.

  • McCook, Alison. 2016. Retract – and replace? JAMA may expand use of this tool. Retraction Watch, June 20. http://retractionwatch.com/2016/06/20/retract-and-replace-jama-may-expand-use-of-this-tool. Accessed 6 July 2018.

  • Michalos, Alex C. 2010. Erratum. Journal of Business Ethics 93 (3): 495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monfasani, John. 1976. George of Trebizond: A biography and a study of his rhetoric and logic. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, Susan E., and Jenny K. Miller. 2001. Beyond the organ donor card: The effect of knowledge, attitudes, and values on willingness to communicate about organ donation to family members. Health Communication 14 (1): 121–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morton, Adam. 2016. Corrigendum. Analysis 76 (4): 445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nature. n.d. Correction and retraction policy. Nature. http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/corrections.html. Accessed 6 July 2018.

  • Oggiscienza. 2018. In filosofia, caccia alle bufale = caccia alle streghe. Oggiscienza: La ricerca e i suoi protagonisti, March 9. https://oggiscienza.it/2018/03/09/filosofia-caccia-bufale-caccia-streghe. Accessed 6 July 2018.

  • Oxford English Dictionary. 1971. Vol. IX: S–Soldo. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pakaluk, Michael. 1998. Aristotle: ‘Nicomachean Ethics’ books VIII and IX. Translated with a commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palus, Shannon. 2016a. Communications researcher regrets ‘severe shortcomings’ in three publications. Retraction Watch, January 18. http://retractionwatch.com/2016/01/18/communications-researcher-regrets-severe-shortcomings-in-three-publications. Accessed 6 July 2018.

  • ———. 2016b. Communications researcher loses two book chapters, Investigated for plagiarism. Retraction Watch, April 18. http://retractionwatch.com/2016/04/18/communications-researcher-loses-two-book-chapters-investigated-for-plagiarism. Accessed 6 July 2018.

  • Peer 1. 2016. Being in accord with oneself. PubPeer, January 24. https://pubpeer.com/publications/A171003E647551A13745F649EAE523. Accessed 6 July 2018.

  • Price, Anthony. 1995. Friendship (VIII und IX). In Die Nikomachische Ethik, ed. Otfried Höffe, 229–251. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radecki, Carmen M., and James Jaccard. 1997. Psychological aspects of organ donation: A critical review and synthesis of individual and next-of-kin donation decisions. Health Psychology 16 (2): 183–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratzan, Scott C., J. Gregory Payne, and Carol Bishop. 1996. The status and scope of health communication. Journal of Health Communication 1 (1): 25–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rydzyński, Konrad. 2006. Message from the Editor-in-Chief: Expression of concern due to plagiarism. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health 19 (2): 149–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryle, Gilbert. 1932. Erratum. Mind 41 (161): 138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sander, Shannon L., and Barbara Kopp Miller. 2005. Public knowledge and attitudes regarding organ and tissue donation: An analysis of the northwest Ohio community. Patient Education and Counseling 58 (2): 154–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, Nancy. 1989. The fabric of character: Aristotle’s theory of virtue. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, Jason T., Eusebio M. Alvaro, and Sara Pace Jones. 2005. Organ donor registration preferences among Hispanic populations: Which modes of registration have the greatest promise? Health Education & Behavior 32 (2): 242–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Souder, Lawrence. 2010. A rhetorical analysis of apologies for scientific misconduct: Do they really mean it? Science and Engineering Ethics 16 (1): 175–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • South, James B. 2018. Martinelli letter, January 2. Retraction Watch. https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Martinelli-Letter.pdf. Accessed 6 July 2018.

  • Stern, Victoria. 2018a. A cardinal sin? Communications researcher accused of plagiarizing former Pope. Retraction Watch, January 12. http://retractionwatch.com/2018/01/12/cardinal-sin-communications-researcher-accused-plagiarizing-former-pope. Accessed 6 July 2018.

  • ———. 2018b. University defends researcher accused of plagiarizing former Pope. Retraction Watch, January 31. https://retractionwatch.com/2018/01/31/university-defends-researcher-accused-plagiarizing-former-pope. Accessed 6 July 2018.

  • Street, Richard L., Jr. 2003. Communication in medical encounters: An ecological perspective. In Handbook of health communication, ed. Teresa L. Thompson et al., 63–94. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Subject Matters: A Journal of Communications and the Self. 2004–2007. http://archive.londonmet.ac.uk/jcamd/research/groups/communicationsand-subjectivity/subject-matters/index.html. Accessed 6 July 2018.

  • Swiss National Science Foundation. 2016. Regulations on scientific misconduct (Research integrity regulations, RI regulations). http://www.snf.ch/sitecollectiondocuments/ueb_org_fehlverh_gesuchstellende_e.pdf. Accessed 6 July 2018.

  • Taylor, Charles. 1985. The Person. In The category of the person: Anthropology, philosophy, history, ed. Michael Carrithers, Steven Collins, and Steven Lukes, 257–281. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1989. Sources of the self: The making of modern identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teixeira da Silva Jaime, A. 2016a. Silent or stealth retractions, the dangerous voices of the unknown, deleted literature. Publishing Research Quarterly 32 (1): 44–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2016b. An error is an error… is an erratum: The ethics of not correcting errors in the science literature. Publishing Research Quarterly 32 (3): 220–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toh, Kevin. 2015. Erratum to: Four neglected prescriptions of Hartian legal philosophy. Law and Philosophy 34 (3): 333–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USI. 2016a. Un’inchiesta per sospetto plagio. http://www.usi.ch/en/comunicati-stampa/1971. Accessed 6 July 2018.

  • ———. 2016b. Violazioni del diritto d’autore ma nessun dolo. Conclusa l’inchiesta per comportamento scientifico scorretto. http://www.usi.ch/en/comunicati-stampa/1894. Accessed 6 July 2018.

  • Vermeule, Adrian. 2006. Judging under uncertainty: An institutional theory of legal interpretation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Virginia Tech Research Integrity Office. 2016. Response to complaint regarding potential plagiarism. http://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/PDF_1_Virginia_Tech-1.pdf. Accessed 6 July 2018.

  • Weber-Wulff, Debora. 2014. False feathers: A perspective on academic plagiarism. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, Justin. 2018a. Plagiarizes again—and is caught by philosophy prof.’s class (updated). Daily Nous: News for and About the Philosophy Profession, January 15, http://dailynous.com/2018/01/15. Accessed 6 July 2018.

  • ———. 2018b. Plagiarist’s university issues criticism …of the whistleblower. Daily Nous: News for and About the Philosophy Profession, February 1. http://dailynous.com/2018/02/01/plagiarists-university-issues-criticism-whistleblower. Accessed 6 July 2018.

  • Wojtyła, Cardinal Carol [Pope John Paul II]. 1978. Subjectivity and the irreducible in man. In The human being in action: The irreducible element in man, Part II: Investigations at the intersection of philosophy and psychiatry, ed. Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka, 107–114. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wojtyła, Cardinal Karol [Pope John Paul II]. 1979. The acting person. Trans. Andrzei Potocki, ed. Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wojtyła, Karol [Pope John Paul II]. 1993. Subjectivity and the irreducible in the human being. In Person and community: Selected essays, (trans: Theresa, Sandok), 209–217. New York: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, Shaoxiong (Brian), and Guangwei Hu. 2018. Retraction notices: Who authored them? Publications 6 (1): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications6010002. Accessed 6 July 2018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, Ohio Dominican University, Columbus, OH, USA

    M. V. Dougherty

Authors
  1. M. V. Dougherty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Dougherty, M.V. (2018). Publishing Corrections of the Scholarly Record: Some Test Cases. In: Correcting the Scholarly Record for Research Integrity. Research Ethics Forum, vol 6. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99435-2_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation