National Academy of Sciences | 150 Year Anniversary

Questions? Call 800-624-6242

| Items in cart [0]

The National Academies Press

PAPERBACK
price:$12.95
add to cart

Rights & Permissions

topleft topright

On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research: Third Edition (2009)
Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP)
National Academy of Engineering (NAE)

Citation Manager

. "Mistakes and Negligence." On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research: Third Edition. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2009.

Please select a format:

BibTeX EndNote RefMan


Page
14
bottomleft bottomright

The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.


On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research, Third Edition

error). Mistakes in other documents that are part of the scientific record—including research proposals, laboratory records, progress reports, abstracts, theses, and internal reports—should be corrected in a way that maintains the integrity of the original record and at the same time keeps other researchers from building on the erroneous results reported in the original.

Discovering an Error

Two young faculty members—Marie, an epidemiologist in the medical school, and Yuan, a statistician in the mathematics department—have published two well-received papers about the spread of infections in populations. As Yuan is working on the simulation he has created to model infections, he realizes that a coding error has led to incorrect results that were published in the two papers. He sees, with great relief, that correcting the error does not change the average time it takes for an infection to spread. But the correct model exhibits greater uncertainty in its results, making predictions about the spread of an infection less definite.

When he discusses the problem with Marie, she argues against sending corrections to the journals where the two earlier articles were published. “Both papers will be seen as suspect if we do that, and the changes don’t affect the main conclusions in the papers anyway,” she says. Their next paper will contain results based on the corrected model, and Yuan can post the corrected model on his Web page.

  1. What obligations do the authors owe their professional colleagues to correct the published record?

  2. How should their decisions be affected by how the model is being used by others?

  3. What other options exist beyond publishing a formal correction?

Page
14