Correction to: Reply to the comment by S. Bouhlel (original) (raw)
Related papers
Correction to: A Landmark in the History of Science
Foundations of Science, 2021
The original article was published with errors. The corrections are provided here. The first and third sentence of the abstract should read as "This paper presents and discusses an authentic landmark in the history of science, namely H. v. Foerster's Cybernetics of Cybernetics, 1974." and "This paper argues that von Foerster's book constitutes a unique achievement in the history of science." Under the section "Introduction", the second sentence should read "By the years 1973-1974 Heinz von Foerster was already a prominent figure in the academic world. Author of more than 100 publications, by then he had already published the most conspicuous papers and chapters that made of him a leading figure in a field that crossed physics and philosophy and the father of second order cybernetics." Under the section "Introduction", the sentence "The argument here is that von Foerster had very carefully thought and developed a second order cybernetics which can be adequately be grasped as control of control or also as the communication of communication" in the second paragraph should read as "The argument here is that von Foerster had very carefully thought and developed a second order cybernetics which can adequately be grasped." In the third paragraph, the sentence "To the best of our knowledge, the book was never published afterwards, which makes of the…" should read as "To the best of our knowledge, the book was not published for twenty years after its appearance, which makes the…" Under the section "Cybernetics of Cybernetics", first and third sentence in the first paragraph should read as "Von Foerster's book can be read and presented in several ways." and "The array of authors can be read as the sources and references…". Third paragraph should read as "The presentation that follows may seem dry to the reader. The reason for
The European Journal of Health Economics
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
African Geographical Review, 2023
Geocoordinates are difficult to generate and interpret and many users rely on academic articles for such data. However, their accuracy has not been assessed, and their continued use could have negative consequences. This paper assessed the accuracy of geocoordinates used to describe study areas in academic articles. The PRISMA methodology was used to select 87 articles. The results revealed that 77 (82.8%) geocoordinates had errors. The study concluded that majority of the articles misinformed the readers about the geocoordinates of their study areas. Hence, authors, editors and reviewers should pay attention to geocoordinates during the writing and review process.
Case study two: Law, scientific truth and maps
2022
Peer-review declaration The publisher (AOSIS) endorses the South African 'National Scholarly Book Publishers Forum Best Practice for Peer-Review of Scholarly Books'. The manuscript underwent an evaluation to compare the level of originality with other published works and was subjected to rigorous two-step peer-review before publication, with the identities of the reviewers not revealed to the editor(s) or author(s). The reviewers were independent of the publisher, editor(s) and author(s). The publisher shared feedback on the similarity report and the reviewers' inputs with the manuscript's editor(s) or author(s) to improve the manuscript. Where the reviewers recommended revision and improvements the editor(s) or author(s) responded adequately to such recommendations. The reviewers commented positively on the scholarly merits of the manuscript and recommended that the book be published.