Logo IMG


Comments and Corrigenda in Scientific Literature

How self-correcting is the written record of scientific and engineering endeavors?

Joseph Grcar


The Scopus database classifies publications by document type, source type and subject area. Document types include article (ar), conference paper (cp), editorial (ed), erratum (er), letter (le), note (no), review (re) and short survey (sh). Source types include book (b), journal (j), book series (k) and conference proceedings (p).

In the graphs that depict the quantity of publications, “journal articles” are document type (ar) and source type (j). “Other journal material” are document type (ed, le, no, re, sh) and source type (j). “Articles in collections” are any document type and source type (b, k, p), as well as document type (cp) and source type (j); the latter criterion finds conference papers published in special or supplementary issues of journals. These three groups comprise 96 percent of all publications in the database for 1990–2010. The balance consists of some technical reports and some articles in trade publications.

In the graphs that depict quantities of corrections, “corrigenda and errata” are document type (er), which as indexed by Scopus also includes the small number of retractions. “Comments and replies” are documents of any type and source whose title contains “comment* on” or “reply to”; the asterisk matches any other full word such as “comments” or “commentary.” “Other refutations” are somewhat difficult to identify; for present purposes they are documents of any type and source whose title, abstract or keywords contain “contradict(s),” “counterexample to,” “disproves(s),” “inconsistent,” “invalidate(s),” or “refute(s).” The overlap among these three groups is 0.2 percent. Source type (j) contains 97 percent of these corrective documents; hence, the percentages are taken with respect to “journal articles” as previously defined.

Scopus also classifies publications into 27 overlapping subject areas. Two of these, mathematics and physics, have been separated in the graphs from computer science and from engineering, respectively, to more faithfully represent the underlying fields.

The Scopus database was reoriented to compete with the more established Web of Science database in the 1990s. (The famous citation impact factors are drawn from the latter database.) The expanded coverage of Scopus may account for the sharp increase in journal articles in 1996. Similarly, a failure to fully classify the larger volume of documents may account for the temporary decrease in corrigenda beginning in the same year.


  • Clark, W. 2006. Academic Charisma and the Origins of the Research University. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Editor. 2010. A painful remedy. Nature 468:6. doi: 10.1038/468006b
  • Editorial Policy Committee. 2012. CSE’s White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications. Wheat Ridge, CO: Council of Science Editors.
  • Elsevier. 2011. SciVerse Scopus. Web Site.
  • International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. 2010. Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals. 2010.
  • Naik, G. 2011 Mistakes in scientific studies surge. The Wall Street Journal CCLVIII(34):A1, A12, August 10.
  • Kim, H. J. 2011. The transition from paper to electronic journals. The Serials Librarian 41(1).
  • Kronick, D. A. 1976. A History of Scientific and Technical Periodicals, 2nd Edition. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.
  • Kronick, D. A. 1991 Scientific and Technical Periodicals of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.
  • Kuhn, T. S. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd Edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Mackenzie Owen, J. S. 2007. The Scientific Article in the Age of Digitization. Springer.
  • Nature Publishing Group. 2011. Authors and Referees: Policies: Corrections
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine. 2011. Fact Sheet: Errata, Retractions, Partial Retractions .… National Institutes of Health.

comments powered by Disqus


Of Possible Interest

Engineering: The Story of Two Houses

Perspective: The Tensions of Scientific Storytelling

Letters to the Editors: The Truth about Models

Subscribe to American Scientist