Abstract
After the journal finally accepts your paper, they will send you printer’s proofs to double-check and approve. You should read those carefully, because small errors can often still be found in a manuscript even at this late stage. In particular, you should double-check that every statement and number in the Abstract still matches the main paper. Many papers undergo substantial revision for peer review. If you made changes to the main paper but did not change the Abstract accordingly, then the final Abstract will not accurately reflect the final paper. That lack of consistency occurs frequently [1–7], surely because authors do not bother to check the printer’s proofs.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Fontelo P, Gavino A, Sarmiento RF. Comparing data accuracy between structured abstracts and full-text journal articles: implications in their use for informing clinical decisions. Evid Based Med. 2013; 18: 207-211.
Estrada CA, Bloch RM, Antonacci D, Basnight LL, Patel SR, Patel SC, Wiese W. Reporting and Concordance of Methodologic Criteria Between Abstracts and Articles in Diagnostic Test Studies. J Gen Intern Med. 2000; 15: 183-187.
Pitkin RM, Branagan MA, Burmeister LF. Accuracy of Data in Abstracts of Published Research Articles. JAMA. 1999; 281: 1110-1111.
Pitkin RM, Branagan MA. Can the accuracy of abstracts be improved by providing specific instructions? A randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1998; 280: 267-269.
Ward LG, Kendrach MG, Price SO. Accuracy of abstracts for original research articles in pharmacy journals. Ann Pharmacother. 2004; 38: 1173-1177.
Harris AHS, Standard S, Brunning JL, Casey SL, Goldberg JH, Oliver L, Ito K, Marshall JM. The Accuracy of Abstracts in Psychology Journals. J Psychol. 2002; 136: 141-148.
Altwairgi AK, Booth CM, Hopman WM, Baetz TD. Discordance Between Conclusions Stated in the Abstract and Conclusions in the Article: Analysis of Published Randomized Controlled Trials of Systemic Therapy in Lung Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30: 3552-3557.
Bullimore MA. Love the Data, Hate the Figures. Optom Vis Sci. 2004; 81: 642-643.
Christiansen S, Flanagin A. Correcting the Medical Literature: “To Err is Human, to Correct Divine”. JAMA. 2017; 318: 804-805.
Scarlat MM. Erratum, corrigenda et emendatio or “mistake, correction and amendment”. Int Orthop. 2017; 41: 1071-1072.
Pulverer B. When things go wrong: correcting the scientific record. EMBO J. 2015; 34: 2483-2485.
The PLoS Medicine Editors. Getting Closer to a Fully Correctable and Connected Research Literature. PLoS Med. 2013; 10: e1001408.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hanna, M. (2019). Correcting the Printer’s Proofs. In: How to Write Better Medical Papers. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02955-5_57
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02955-5_57
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-02954-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-02955-5
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)