Perceptions of errata on journal articles?

[futureapppsy2]

I know that retractions look really bad, of course, but what are your perceptions on post-publication corrections to journal articles that don't affect the findings (correcting minor errors in tables or minor errors in figure legends seems relatively common, for example). Do they reflect poorly on the authors or not really matter?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I personally have never had them negatively color my view of the original article or its authors.

 

[MCParent]

I know that retractions look really bad, of course, but what are your perceptions on post-publication corrections to journal articles that don't affect the findings (correcting minor errors in tables or minor errors in figure legends seems relatively common, for example). Do they reflect poorly on the authors or not really matter?

It could easily be a typo made by the typesetter that the author missed in the proof. I've had the typesetters add grammar errors to my papers. Having it negatively affect one's opinion of the authors is nonsense.

 

[deleted343839]

It doesn't affect my perception. Usually the subject matter of errata is pretty minor stuff. If anything, I appreciate someone who is conscientious enough to publish an erratum.

 

[Ollie123]

Not a big deal in most cases. Kind of irritating as a reader just because info then ends up spread out, but I wouldn't hold it against the authors.

As MCParent said, a lot of times the copyeditors/typesetters eff things up. I can't tell you the number of times I've almost missed things in proofs that some copyeditor decided to screw around with and not mention they changed. I've found they can get extraordinarily pissy when you correct their grammar

 

[PsychPhDone]

Copyeditor spelled my name wrong post-proof.

No judgment on errata.

 

[DrMikeP]

I know that retractions look really bad, of course, but what are your perceptions on post-publication corrections to journal articles that don't affect the findings (correcting minor errors in tables or minor errors in figure legends seems relatively common, for example). Do they reflect poorly on the authors or not really matter?

I've seen really poorly written articles so view any corrections as a positive. However, unless you read a particular journal all the time you often never notice the corrections.

When doing article reviews I often try to point out minor errors and request they be fixed prior to publication. To me it causes the author(s) a minor headache but it also saves people thinking they are illiterate.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Not a big deal in most cases. Kind of irritating as a reader just because info then ends up spread out, but I wouldn't hold it against the authors.

As MCParent said, a lot of times the copyeditors/typesetters eff things up. I can't tell you the number of times I've almost missed things in proofs that some copyeditor decided to screw around with and not mention they changed. I've found they can get extraordinarily pissy when you correct their grammar

My "favorite" typesetter experience was when they found formatting our table of studies to be too time-consuming and suggested we just drop it from the article. A table of studies. In a systematic review. We declined to take that suggestion.