The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
A survey reported by Chemistry World found that respondents most often favored raising errors in published research privately—with colleagues or students, or by contacting an editor—rather than using a route that makes a correction visible to every reader. The finding describes the people who replied, not chemists as a whole: the report says almost 1,000 of 50,000 contacted authors responded, a 2% response rate.
What the survey reported
Frédérique Bordignon of the Polytechnic Institute of Paris surveyed corresponding authors with at least two publications during 2020–2023 in journals published by the American Chemical Society, the Royal Society of Chemistry, or both. As summarized by Chemistry World on 5 November 2025, 50,000 authors were contacted and almost a thousand replied.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics | $90.99 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
100 Questions (and Answers) About Research Ethics | $37.59 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
Research Ethics for Social Scientists | $12.24 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics | $18.00 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
|
Ethical and Regulatory Aspects of Clinical Research: Readings and Commentary | $50.00 | Buy on Amazon |
Among respondents, the reported preference was to discuss errors informally with colleagues or students, or to write privately to editors. The available report excerpt does not give percentages for each route, explain how respondents were selected beyond the stated eligibility criteria, or analyze how nonrespondents might differ. With a reported response rate of 2%, the result should be read as a description of respondents—not evidence that chemists generally prefer private correction.
Private conversations and public corrections do different things
| Route | Visibility to later readers | Attached to the original article? | What the report establishes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discuss the error with colleagues or students | Private or limited to those involved | Not established | Reported as a preferred approach among respondents |
| Write privately to an editor | Not necessarily visible to readers | Not established | Reported as a preferred approach among respondents |
| Use an online platform or repository to make a correction public | Potentially visible to readers, depending on the platform | Not established | Reported as Bordignon’s proposal for encouraging visible corrections, not as a route shown to be used or effective |
A private message can alert an editor or help colleagues address an issue, but readers who encounter the paper later may not see that exchange. Publicly visible correction routes could make information easier to find; whether a platform links a correction to the original paper, and how it handles updates, depends on the platform. The report excerpt does not compare the effectiveness of these approaches.
#1 Best Overall
Why the gap matters to readers
Correcting a record involves more than noticing a mistake: information about it needs to reach people who rely on the published work. When a concern stays in a conversation or private correspondence, subsequent readers may have no indication that it was raised. A visible correction can help readers identify a change or concern, but the survey summary does not establish which mechanisms reliably do this or how often authors used them.
The survey also highlights a distinction between researchers’ stated preferences and the systems journals and repositories provide. Bordignon was reported as proposing online platforms and repositories to encourage corrections that are visible to readers. That is a proposal, not evidence that any particular platform has been adopted or that public corrections are more effective.
Rank #2
What is—and is not—known about errors raised with reviewers
The Chemistry World headline deck says some respondents reported introducing “errors” into their work to satisfy reviewers. The available excerpt supplies no rate, definition of “errors,” or context for that statement. It therefore cannot show how many respondents were involved, what changes they made, or whether the reported changes were mistakes, compromises, or something else. It should not be treated as evidence that this is common practice.
How to interpret the finding
- It is a survey result, not a universal rule: the summary reports the views of a small share of contacted authors.
- It describes reported preferences: it does not establish how respondents actually handled specific errors.
- It does not rank correction methods: no comparative evidence about effectiveness is provided.
- It leaves important details open: the available summary does not provide the questionnaire, respondent demographics, full response distributions, or an analysis of nonresponse.
The result is best understood as a signal that private communication is an appealing route for the respondents described, while making corrections visible to future readers remains a separate challenge.
Quick Recap
Best Value
- Used Book in Good Condition
Rank #4
Rank #3
- Used Book in Good Condition
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
