Timeline for Permanent archival of errata/corrigenda for published papers
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 25 at 15:59 | comment | added | David White | I know of some paper in my research area that had an erratum to an erratum (I won't name names to avoid hurt feelings). And, I think something like this also happened with Dan Biss. But I agree it's rare. | |
| Dec 24, 2018 at 0:58 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | So, I would argue that the threshold for accepting an erratum for publication should be lower than for accepting the original paper for publication. The fact that it isn't seems to be contributing to the unfortunate "current culture" that you point out. | |
| Dec 24, 2018 at 0:57 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | I can understand that an editor might want to exert some editorial control over an erratum, but one of the purposes of refereeing is to decide whether the result is worthy of publication. That bar has already been met if the paper was published, and I don't see why it should have to be surmounted again. If the concern is that the erratum itself might be wrong, well, this is a case where I think the principle that the author assumes primary responsibility for correctness applies. I think it will be extremely rare for an erratum to be substantially wrong. | |
| Dec 23, 2018 at 23:04 | history | answered | R W | CC BY-SA 4.0 |