- \n
- Most open access repositories have evolved without sufficient means to communicate corrections or retractions.<\/li>\n
- Metadata, such as DOIs, could be used to link all article versions and ensure corrections\/retractions are clearly indicated to readers.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/AdobeStock_972077839.jpeg?resize=1024%2C585&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\nOpen access repositories have an important role in disseminating scientific research. But what happens when a journal corrects or retracts a publication? A recent LSE Impact Blog article<\/a> describes Fr\u00e9d\u00e9rique Bordignon\u2019s alarming discovery<\/a> around how well this is captured by repositories.<\/p>\n
Open repositories\u2019 ‘blind spot’ to corrections and retractions<\/strong><\/p>\n
As Bordignon explains, most journals display up-to-date editorial notices alongside publications, although clarity can vary. On the other hand, open repositories do not necessarily pull through information on correction\/retraction from published counterparts, and guidance from the Confederation of Open Access Repositories<\/a> is lacking.<\/p>\n
To examine the topic further, Bordignon\u2019s team conducted a manually verified analysis of the world\u2019s second largest institutional repository, HAL<\/a>, by cross-checking its records against 24,430 corrected or retracted publications extracted from the Crossref x Retraction Watch<\/a> database. Shockingly, they found that 91% of corrections\/retractions were not indicated in the repository. Bordignon emphasises that this situation is not unique to HAL, but reflective of repositories across the world.<\/p>\n
\n
\u201c91% of corrections\/retractions were not indicated in the repository\u2026this situation is\u2026reflective of repositories across the world.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
How to ‘fill the gap’ in effective reporting of corrections<\/strong><\/p>\n
The solution? Bordignon points out that open repositories have a powerful opportunity to ‘fill the gap’ in effective reporting of corrections. However, rather than expecting repository managers to make individual version control decisions for every publication, Bordignon suggests that open repositories:<\/p>\n
- \n
- create their own archives<\/li>\n
- clearly display the editorial status of each article<\/li>\n
- include a permanent, bidirectional link to the corrected published version<\/li>\n
- enable automated updates through partnerships with Crossref x Retraction Watch, making use of metadata such as digital object identifiers<\/li>\n
- incorporate platforms that detect and report retractions, such as PubMed<\/a>, PubPeer<\/a>, and Scite<\/a>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Bordignon provides a stark reminder that omission of corrections\/retractions notices from open repositories risks that users may be learning, citing, or even propagating, flawed science; this can ultimately \u201cerode public trust in science\u201d. She urges open repositories to galvanise their position in the fight for research integrity, paving the way for a more streamlined archiving system that leaves readers in no doubt as to the reliability of the information they are accessing.<\/p>\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Aspirations_Susannah-Holliman_1.png?resize=1024%2C125&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\n