Three Liars Make A Tiger: Errors in Chemistry Publications

Survey results found that 22% of chemists made changes that they knew to be incorrect to their manuscript during the review process. The study, “On and off-the-record correction practices: A survey-based study of how chemistry researchers react to errors,” was published this October in the journal Accountability and Research.

This alarming finding came from a survey with 1,135 respondents who had at least two recent publications in the American Chemical Society or the Royal Society of Chemistry. The study aimed to characterize how scientists respond to errors in their own writing and in their peers' writing. While the study failed to include perspectives from new scientists with no publications or publications in smaller journals, which is the demographic that often feels the most pressure to publish, it did identify how seasoned chemists respond to finding mistakes in published articles and their opinions on the review process.

Wikimedia Commons, 2023. Creative Commons License.

Nearly 90% of respondents had identified an error in a paper they had not written, and most (79%) took action. The most common action (42%) was to mention the issue in private discussion with colleagues, and some (28%) contacted the authors directly to encourage a correction or retraction. However, some feel that these off-the-record actions are not enough and that corrections need to be made public.

The majority of respondents agreed that an error should be corrected as a matter of principle, although respondents were less likely to act on an error if it had no impact on the conclusions of the paper. Preventing the spread of misinformation was also a motivation for correction. One respondent stated, “Propagation of an error makes it accepted as truth. ‘Three Liars Make a Tiger.’”

It is clear that most chemists feel it is important for errors to be identified and action to be taken, even if it is not public. What is concerning is when false information is intentionally added to papers, as over one-fifth of respondents admitted to doing during the review process.

The review process is how experts in the field provide feedback on a paper prior to publication. Several reviewers are assigned to read and provide feedback on a draft of an article. They might confirm the validity of the techniques used, question whether data support a bold claim, or even request that the author do additional experiments. While the process aims to prevent the publishing of unwarranted claims and promote high standards for researchers, it has been criticized for being slow and for bias from editors and reviewers.

The survey found that reviewers felt pointing out an error to an author goes badly. On the other hand, authors often feel reviewers lack expertise on their subject.

While the authors of the study feel the peer review system to be deficient due to the prevalence of published errors and how they are dealt with in private, others find that the current system acts self-protectively.

“If you make [unsupported] claims in Nature or Science, everybody's paying attention to them. If you make those claims in a journal that is lower impact […] there's a much smaller audience for the papers, [and] they're much more likely to just kind of sit unobserved or unnoticed. In some ways, that actually is like a good mechanism,” says Dave Gorin, chemistry professor at Smith College, as he weighs the pros and cons of the peer review system.

Some fields of science now have a double-blind process for review, where authors do not know the identity of their reviewers. Chemistry has yet to take this step. Gorin says, “I think that reviewers can have their own agendas, and anonymous peer review can mask those so that's […] another place where the system is kind of imperfect.”

Gorin also believes that a journal having an editor who is a scientist is important, both so that there is an intermediary between the reviewer and author and so that the editor has enough scientific knowledge to understand what kinds of corrections are justified.

While errors might slip through the peer review process, the power lies with researchers to write only what evidence supports to be true.

Ultimately, speaking to future scientists, “What we write in the literature, [that’s] your legacy as a scientist,” Gorin says. “You should be willing to back those with [...] all of your confidence.”

By Maggie Sullivan

References:

Bordignon, F. (2025). On and off-the-record correction practices: A survey-based study of how chemistry researchers react to errors. Accountability in Research, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2564106

Burke, M. (n.d.). When it comes to correcting the scientific record, chemists prefer to have a quiet word. Chemistry World. Retrieved November 9, 2025, from https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/when-it-comes-to-correcting-the-scientific-record-chemists-prefer-to-have-a-quiet-word/4022416.article

Chawla, D. S., C, special to, & EN. (2025, January 21). 1 in 5 chemists have deliberately added errors into their papers during peer review, study finds. Chemical & Engineering News. https://cen.acs.org/policy/publishing/One-five-chemists-deliberately-added/103/web/2025/10

Kelly, J., Sadeghieh, T., & Adeli, K. (2014). Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide. EJIFCC, 25(3), 227–243.