Examining corrected papers in the “Primary Health Care” category in the Web of Science database

Authors

Abstract

AimThe aim was to conduct detailed analyses, as very little is known about the articles corrected in the “primary health care” category in the Web of Science (WoS) database.
Methods‘Primary health care’ was entered as a category in the WoS search interface; the time period was not selected, and the document types ‘corrected’ and ‘correction, addition’ were selected. The correction grades achieved were analyzed into two groups: major and minor. The locations of the corrections in the article were determined, and subgroup analyses were provided.
ResultsIn the primary healthcare category, corrections were detected in 1,104 out of 106,593 articles. When we examine the correction sources, we find that there are 610 articles by the author, 250 articles by the publisher, six editors, six authors and publishers, four publishers and editors, and three authors and editors. According to the nature of the corrections, 20 (2%) were determined as major corrections, 860 (78%) as minor corrections, and 220 (20.00%) as unknown; no note. An average correction rate of 1.18 per accessible article was determined.
ConclusionNew strategies should be examined to more effectively and efficiently correct errors in articles. It should be kept in mind that readers are a form of control, and they should be made aware that they are at least as responsible as the editor, publisher, and authors.

Keywords

Introduction

Scientific article editing is a change that may affect the overall image of the journal, publisher, or author. However, information based on scientific evidence is of sufficient quality to be part of the intellectual foundation and does not require the article to be removed entirely from the scientific community.¹
The increasing number of publications can lead to scientific misconduct and unintentional errors. These errors may include typos, omissions in author information, incorrect figure labels, and reference errors. According to the rules of scientific ethics, authors and editors are required to correct errors as soon as they become aware of them, clearly and promptly. Publishing incorrect data, especially in fields such as health sciences, can disrupt the progress of science in the right direction.^2,3,4
Corrections and retractions have been available on PubMed and Web of Science (WoS) platforms from the past to the present. PubMed began recording corrections and retractions in 1987, while the WoS database shows that corrections have been published since at least 1901. This is actually an expected situation. The publication of corrections predates the invention of the printing press.⁵ Correction has been an option for editors and writers throughout the history of science. However, what is noteworthy is that while the number of publications covered by WoS has steadily increased, the correction rate has remained stable since the 1950s.⁶ When the fields of articles with WoS-based correction are examined, the most common ones are physics (n = 38,899, since 1905), chemistry (n = 31,463, 1911), engineering (n = 22,521, 1927), biochemistry and molecular biology (n = 21,155, 1930), and general internal medicine (n = 16,443, 1901).⁶ The literature review revealed that, on average, there was more than one correction in every 100 articles.^7,8,9,10 It is predicted that the increase in the total number of articles will also lead to an increase in the number of corrections in the coming years.
Although they are part of scientific knowledge, little is known about primary health care articles with corrections. Therefore, this study will specifically try to answer the following questions, and these will be its aims:
1. What is the seriousness of the corrections made to the articles?
2. What are the reasons for the correction of articles in journals?
3. What are the features of correction articles?
4. What is the accessibility of correction articles?

Materials and Methods

Researchers scanned the Web of Science database for corrected articles in the “Primary Health Care” category on October 1, 2024. In addition, all correction articles in the system in which the authors did not set a year limitation for the subject were examined. ‘Primary health care’ was entered as a category in the Web of Science search interface; the time period was not selected, and the document types were selected as “correction” and “correction, and addition”. The results were saved to a file. Duplicate articles were excluded from the study. The analysis continued with the obtained correction notes.
The researchers conducted an independent analysis of several correction sets to categorize the correction attributes and determine which contained major or minor corrections. After the analysis, the categorized areas were compared and discussed, and a consensus was reached on the common categories. During the data collection phase, one of the authors categorized the remaining revisions as agreed upon. In case of any doubt in the categorization of a correction, the author who collected the data tried to eliminate this situation by consulting the other author. The data recorded after the literature review for each corrected study are as follows: who made the correction, number of corrections, place of correction (title, author information, abstract, introduction, methods, result, discussion, conclusion, keywords, acknowledgment, table/ figure, references/attributions, funding, manner of publication, conflicts of interest), severity of corrections (this is qualitatively categorized as “minor” and “major”).
If the corrections in the article were small in number, did not significantly change the interpretation and conclusion of the research, or did not change the general quality of the article, they were categorized as ‘minor corrections’. These are considered title errors, typos, errors in author information, and minor numerical errors in tables and figures. Errors where there are multiple errors, where corrections lead to changes in the interpretation of data or study results, or where corrections change the general nature of the research are classified as ‘major corrections’.¹
Ethical ApprovalOur research involves examining articles published in the publicly accessible Web of Science database. It has been verbally stated that ethical approval from our institution’s ethics committee is not required.
Statistical AnalysisDescriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. Categorical variables were presented as number (n) and percentage (%). Continuous variables were presented as mean, standard deviation, median, minimum, and maximum values where appropriate. Data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, USA).
Reporting GuidelinesThe study was reported in accordance with STROBE guidelines.

Results

Characteristics of Corrected Articles in the Primary Health Care categoryIn the primary health care category, 1104 out of 106,593 articles were marked as corrections (rate in the category = 1.035%). Four of these articles were considered duplicates and were excluded from the study. The correction notes for 220 articles could not be found despite research. The final analysis of the study was conducted using 880 articles out of a total of 1,100, for which correction grades were determined. When the number of corrections is examined, as shown in Table 1, 70.82% of the articles corrected in the primary health care category in the WoS database contain only one correction. While 9.18% of articles had more than one correction, 20.00% had no correction notes. An average correction rate of 1.18 was determined per accessible article (Table 1).
When the sources of the corrections in the articles were examined, the source author was found in 610 articles, and the publisher was found as the source in 250 articles. In addition, there were six editors, six authoırs and publishers, four publishers and editors, and three authors and editors corrections (Table 1).
Severity of Corrections Made to Articles in the Primary Health Care categoryAccording to the results of our research, there were a total of 1043 corrections in 880 articles. It was determined that most corrections to articles in the primary health care category in the WoS database were minor (Figure 1).
When we look at the characteristics of the corrections, the minor corrections are the highest headings in themselves: author information (author names, e-mail, links) (n = 316, 32%), errors in tables and figures (n = 217, 22%), and errors in the introduction (n = 153, 15.5%) are the mistakes made. Other minor corrections are reference (n = 67), result (n = 51), abstract (n = 45), title (n = 30), method (n = 20), acknowledgement (n = 20), conclusion (n = 19), conflict of interest (n = 19), discussion (n = 18), funding (n = 17), manner of publication (n = 10), and keywords (n = 1) errors. Major corrections were the highest headings in themselves: table and figure (n = 10, 25%), result (n = 8, 20%), manner of publication (n = 6, 15%), discussion (n = 5, 12.5%), method (n = 4, 10%). Other major corrections were made to the introduction (n = 2), conclusion (n = 2), references/ citations (n = 2), and funding (n = 1).
When we examine the distribution of total corrections by quality, the three highest counts of correction locations are author information (316), tables/figures (227), and introductions (155). The lowest are keywords (1), manner of publication (16), and funding (18). The distribution of total corrections by characteristic is shown in Table 2.
When the frequencies of the corrections are examined according to their nature, 20 (2%) were determined as major corrections, 860 (78%) as minor corrections, and 220 (20.00%) as unknown, with no note (Figure 1). Corrections that change the overall integrity of the article or affect its interpretations or conclusions are classified as major. In our research, 20 articles were classified as major by the researchers. When we look at the sources of the major corrections, 7 (35%) were from the publisher, and 13 (65%) were from the author. Detailed information and the basis of major corrections are explained in Supplementary Table 1 and Table 2.

Discussion

This research presented a series of findings after examining the correction notes for articles in the “Primary Health Care” category in the Web of Science database. A total of 1104 articles that met the research criteria were analyzed. The total number of corrections in these articles was determined as 1043 after the analysis of 880 accessible articles (rate in category = 0.82%). In our research, 70.82% of articles had only one correction, while 9.18% had more than one. Those for which no correction notes were found accounted for 20.00%. In addition to the low level of increase in correction statistics, literature research has also reported on the seriousness of corrections. In a pilot study investigating randomized controlled trials, corrections by Royle and Waugh (2004) were applied, and articles deemed worthy of review were analyzed. A major error is defined as one expected to affect the analysis and results. One hundred articles published in four general medical journals were reviewed. The collected data were analyzed from the perspectives of an information specialist and an experienced referee/public health consultant. Although the corrections were not at a level that affected the results of the articles, they were considered noteworthy to ensure accurate data that would prevent confusion among evaluators and readers.¹¹ In another study conducted by Hauptman et al. in the USA in 2014, correction notices of 20 English medical journals were evaluated. A total of 557 articles were examined in the study, and 24.2% contained at least one major error that significantly affected the article.⁸ In another study conducted in Canada, 40 systematic reviews were examined. In total, 26 errors were detected in 127 articles. Among these errors, 38 were identified. When classified by severity, 6 errors were major, and 20 were minor.¹² In another study of neurosurgery articles published over the last 30 years, 441 articles were reviewed, and the error rate was 0.81%.¹³ With the emphasis on publishing research based on reliable medical evidence in the information age, correction policies are expected to be transparent and accessible to all segments, clearly visible to authors and the general public. Much of the reporting and associated controversy regarding corrections is based on medical journals. Journals in the field of medicine are among the most cited and researched journals. WoS and PubMed databases are used in most articles.^14,15,16,17
Upon reviewing the literature, a bibliometric study was conducted by examining seven emergency medicine journals between 2000 and 2020 for publication errors. The results of this research included articles containing 251 corrections. Among the 18250 relevant publications, the error rate was 1.3%.⁷ In our study, 1104 of 106,593 articles in the primary health care category (1.035%) were corrected. In our study, the increase in the number of correction articles over the years is visually shown (Figure 2). In this 2024 article, 13 2024 articles were excluded from the visual analysis to avoid incorrect interpretations. The trend line of corrections in the field of emergency medicine between 2000 and 2020 showed that the number of correction notifications was 10-15 per year, with an average of 11.9, and indicated no trend.⁷ We recorded the corrected sections of scientific articles. The most common minor corrections were in author information (32%), tables and figures (22%), and the introduction (15.5%). In major corrections, errors in tables and figures (25%), results (20%), and the manner of publication (15%) came to the fore.
Analyses regarding corrections can be made in any scientific field, on any subject, or throughout a journal. In a study examining corrections and errata regarding COVID-19, the most common corrections were author information (76 records), tables (29 records), results and findings (28 records), introduction (25 records), figures (25 records), and unknown (17 records) were observed to be related.² The study, which examined corrections made in a single journal, was published in PLOS One and involved 649 corrections. This study used a methodology similar to ours. By error location, the largest share of corrections (39.3%) involved author notification. Author information was followed by figures, funding, and tables, respectively.¹⁸ In the correction analysis conducted in the field of emergency medicine, the areas with the most errors were the author information (40.5%), followed by the tables and methodology section.⁷ Our findings, as well as the studies we compared, similarly revealed that frequent corrections were made to author information, tables, and figures. This shows that researchers need to pay more attention to these sections at each stage, such as submission, revision, and proofreading, in order to avoid making mistakes.
When examining the sources of corrections in our research, the authors made the majority (55.45%), while 22.72% were made by the publishing houses. A small percentage of corrections came from the editor or other sources. Of the 20 major corrections, 65% were from the author, and 35% were from the publishing house. In our study, when the unknown 20% was included, the remaining 78% were marked as minor errors, and 2% as major errors. In a study conducted in the field of emergency medicine, authors were the primary responsible party for errors requiring correction, with a rate of 93.2%. Apart from this, only a small portion of the errors, 7.2%, were classified as major. 62.9% consisted of minor errors that had no impact on the interpretation or conclusion of the manuscript.⁷ Although the correction notes indicate that minor errors are the majority, it is essential to identify major errors that could alter the article's results and interpretations, thereby preventing the spread of misinformation in the scientific world.

Limitations

This study had some limitations, the most important of which was that a single database was used. Additional articles may have been identified in other databases for inclusion in the study. However, the WoS database is a platform that is frequently used safely in bibliometric studies. Although a single database was used to provide more detailed coverage of a category, this deficiency was mitigated by compiling a large number of articles from a comprehensive and diverse pool with considerable effort. The second limitation is that there may be differences among researchers’ evaluations in determining major and minor errors or the source of correction. The two researchers aimed to minimize differences between observers by frequently reaching consensus.

Conclusion

With the advent of online journal publishers and scholarly social media platforms, new strategies must be examined to track and correct errors more effectively and efficiently. An article containing incorrect information can spread further if it is cited. For these reasons, it should be kept in mind that readers are a control mechanism, and they should be made aware that they are at least as responsible as the editor, publisher, and writers. Additionally, authors and publishers must collaborate more effectively to produce high-quality scientific articles.

Declarations

Abbreviations

PHC: Primary health care
WoS: Web of Science

References

1. Wager E, Williams P. Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988–2008. J Med Ethics. 2011;37(9):567-570. doi:10.1136/ jme.2010.040964
   Article PubMed Google Scholar
2. Moradi S, Abdi S. Pandemic publication: correction and erratum in COVID-19 publications. Scientometrics. 2021;126(2):1849-1857. doi:10.1007/s11192-020- 03787-w
   Article PubMed Google Scholar
3. Graf C, Wager E, Bowman A, et al. Best Practice Guidelines on Publication Ethics: a publisher’s perspective. Int J Clin Pract Suppl. 2007;61(152):1-26. doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2006.01230.x
   Article PubMed Google Scholar
4. Molckovsky A, Vickers MM, Tang PA. Characterization of published errors in high-impact oncology journals. Curr Oncol. 2011;18(1):26-32. doi:10.3747/co.v18i1.707
   Article PubMed Google Scholar
5. Beal P. A dictionary of English manuscript terminology: 1450 to 2000. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.p.452-7.
   PubMed Google Scholar
6. Fanelli D. Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign. PLoS Medicine. 2013;10(12):e1001563. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001563
   Article PubMed Google Scholar
7. Vural S, Kaya HB, Coskun F. A bibliometric study on the publication errors in emergency medicine journals from 2000 to 2020. Am J Emerg Med. 2022;60:140-4. doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2022.08.001
   Article PubMed Google Scholar
8. Hauptman PJ, Armbrecht ES, Chibnall JT, et al. Errata in medical publications. Am J Med. 2014;127(8):79-785. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2014.03.012
   Article PubMed Google Scholar
9. Castillo M, Northam M, Halm KE. Postpublication errors in imaging-related journals. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2012;33(8):1447-1448. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3026
   Article PubMed Google Scholar
10. McEachern JD, Leswick DA, Stoneham GW, et al. Radiological errors in the Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine. CJEM. 2014;16(5):361-369. doi:10.2310/8000.2013.131183
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
11. Royle P, Waugh N. Should systematic reviews include searches for published errata? Health Info Libr J. 2004;21(1):14-20. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2004.00459.x
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
12. Farrah K, Rabb D. Errata for trial publications are not uncommon, are frequently not trivial, and can be challenging to access: a retrospective review. J Med Libr Assoc. 2019;107(2):187.doi:10.5195/jmla.2019.629
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
13. Akhaddar A. Error publication (published erratum) in neurosurgical journals worldwide using PubMed during the last 30 years. Childs Nerv Syst. 2021;37(2):637-643. doi:10.1007/s00381-020-04824-y
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
14. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109(42):17028-17033. doi:10.1073/pnas.1212247109
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
15. Peterson GM. Characteristics of retracted open access biomedical literature: a bibliographic analysis. JASIST. 2013;64(12):2428-2436. doi:10.1002/asi.22944
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
16. Samp JC, Schumock GT, Pickard AS. Retracted publications in the drug literature. Pharmacotherapy. 2012;32(7):586-595. doi:10.1002/j.1875- 9114.2012.01100.x
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
17. Steen RG. Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing? J Med Ethics. 2011;37(4):249-253. doi:10.1136/ jme.2011.043463
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
18. Strothmann M. No bad publicity: the bibliometric advantage of corrected articles in PLOS ONE. Science & Technology Libraries. 2018;37(4):394-408. doi: 10.1080/0194262X.2018.1503990
    Article PubMed Google Scholar

Additional Information

Publisher’s Note
Bayrakol MP remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional and institutional claims.

Rights and Permissions

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0). To view a copy of the license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

View full license details →

About This Article

Received:

November 10, 2025

Accepted:

December 22, 2025

Published Online:

January 13, 2026

Printed:

July 1, 2026