Recommended Free Tools
A survey reported by Chemistry World found that respondents more often favored discussing errors informally with colleagues or students, or privately contacting an editor, than using a route that makes a correction visible to all readers. The finding describes the people who answered—not chemists as a whole—and highlights a practical distinction: a concern can be communicated without becoming part of the public scholarly record.
What did the survey report?
Frédérique Bordignon of the Polytechnic Institute of Paris surveyed corresponding authors who had published at least two papers during 2020–2023 in journals of the American Chemical Society, the Royal Society of Chemistry, or both. Chemistry World’s report, published on 5 November 2025, says 50,000 authors were contacted; almost a thousand replied, a reported response rate of 2%.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics | $90.99 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
100 Questions (and Answers) About Research Ethics | $37.59 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
Research Ethics for Social Scientists | $12.24 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics | $18.00 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
|
Ethical and Regulatory Aspects of Clinical Research: Readings and Commentary | $50.00 | Buy on Amazon |
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Among those who responded, the most commonly reported preferences were to discuss errors informally with colleagues or students, or to write privately to editors. The available report excerpt does not give percentages for each option or enough information to determine how respondents differed from people who did not reply. The result therefore cannot establish how chemists generally handle errors.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →How do the correction routes differ?
These routes are not interchangeable. A private conversation may alert someone to a problem, while a correction attached to a paper can inform readers who encounter it later. The report describes respondent preferences and a proposal; it does not establish how often any route was used or which works best.
#1 Best Overall
| Route | Visibility to later readers | Attached to the original article? | What the report establishes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Informal discussion with colleagues or students | Limited to those involved in the conversation. | Not established by the report. | Respondents commonly preferred this approach. |
| Private communication with an editor | Not necessarily visible to readers. | Not established by the report. | Respondents commonly preferred writing privately to editors. |
| Correction made visible through an online platform or repository | Could make information accessible to readers beyond the original participants. | Whether it is linked to the original article depends on the platform or repository; the report excerpt does not specify. | Bordignon reportedly proposed online platforms and repositories to encourage visible corrections; the excerpt does not show that respondents used them. |
Why does public visibility matter?
If an error affects the interpretation or reuse of a paper, telling a colleague or editor privately does not by itself tell later readers what changed. A visible correction can help readers discover that the record has been amended, particularly when it is clearly connected to the article. Bordignon’s reported suggestion was to use online platforms and repositories to encourage corrections that readers can see.
That proposal should not be mistaken for evidence that a particular platform is effective, that repositories currently solve the problem, or that every error warrants the same remedy. The report excerpt does not compare outcomes or specify processes for deciding whether a correction is needed.
Rank #2
What does the reviewer-related claim mean?
The Chemistry World headline deck also says some respondents reported introducing “errors” into their work to satisfy reviewers. The available excerpt provides no rate, definition of “errors,” or context for the statement. It cannot support a claim about how common this was or what kinds of changes respondents meant.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
What can readers conclude?
The reported finding is a contrast between private ways of raising a concern and the goal of making corrections visible in the scholarly record. It is a limited snapshot from a survey with a reported 2% response rate, not evidence that chemists broadly avoid formal corrections. The available Chemistry World excerpt does not include the questionnaire, respondent demographics, detailed response distributions, nonresponse analysis, or a link to the underlying study, so those details remain unestablished.
Quick Recap
Best Value
- Used Book in Good Condition
Rank #4
Rank #3
- Used Book in Good Condition
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
