Re: Results of the NIH Plan

[Heather Morrison <heatherm@eln.bc.ca>]

On Sept. 18, T. Scott Plutchak wrote:

"Authors having access to the "final copy reflecting all substantive
peer-reviewing" is not the point here.  It's the fact that despite
everyone's best efforts, no one can guarantee error-free publication.

"There was a case some months ago in which we (Lister Hill Library)  were
alerted by letter to the fact that the abstract of a recently published
article contained a typographical error, that, if followed, would have
resulted in deadly dosages being given to pediatric patients."

This is an excellent - and sobering, point.

Errors can be introduced in the copyediting process.  It has happened to
me that a grammatically perfect piece of work (thanks to a co- author) was
published with numerous spelling mistakes, of important terms, no less.  
Not a life-and-death matter, thankfully.

If the ADA believes in posting warnings, perhaps the final, peer- reviewed
copy should have one too.  One possibility for wording:  this article has
been copyedited; we try hard, but mistakes can happen in this process.  
For further certainty, please check the author's own version as well.  
Not that everyone will need to do this - but for a new procedure that has
not yet been replicated, it might be a good idea in a clinical context.

This is evidence, to me, of another area in need of change in scholarly
communications:  we need better quality control (peer- review and editing)
procedures.  My thoughts on an open peer review process can be found at:
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com/2005/08/open-peer-review-model-
invitation.html Please note:  peer review reform is not open access; it is
a different area of scholarly communications.  One could proceed with peer
review reform without open access, and vice versa.  In my opinion, we need
both.

best,

Heather Morrison
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com