Erratum on 2011 Gauger-Axe Paper

To their credit, Gauger and Axe issued an erratum. What do you make of it?

https://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/downloadSuppFile/BIO-C.2011.1/BIO-C.2011.1.e1

From November 2014, so this is old news. I just had not seen it yet.

It doesn’t appear in “volume” 2014 nor is it connected to the original paper (at least not that I can see) in 2011. Those are the proper and accepted ways to use errata. Someone who downloads the 2011 paper would not know that the authors have corrected it, without going to the “Announcements” page. My guess is that their platform doesn’t support this, but it’s a shame because the correction is barely public, IMO.

1 Like

Let’s give them credit for making a real erratum. I’ll send them a note. I don’t see why they wouldn’t fix it. I expect this was an oversight.

1 Like

It’s a real erratum but it’s almost invisible. And I don’t think this is likely to be a glitch or an oversight. I would guess that the platform doesn’t support the kind of linkage that is needed. They might be rightly hesitant to correct the paper without being able to clearly indicate that the corrected version is linked to an original with an error. BTW I haven’t looked at the 2011 paper to see if it has been changed.

1 Like

This is the response I got:

On the download pages, I added a note below the abstract of every paper with an erratum. It provides a link to the erratum.

Sure enough, if you look here:

[See published correction to this paper: doi:10.5048/BIO-C.2011.1.e1].

Seems like they had their bases covered, at least in this respect.

That’s great, although I think they just added it, so no they didn’t “have their bases covered.” It’s okay, IMO, since the issue was not whether they ran a correction but whether they made it visible and connected to the original paper. As I’ve said before, that was probably not an oversight but just a weakness of their system.

1 Like

Good point. July 2019 this note was not there.

I agree it is okay. I think it was an oversight, and (1) it appears that they fixed it quickly after it was noted, and (2) it appears they also intended to make it known also because it was in their announcements.

Yes, they did a great job.