Author Correction: Multi-scale classification decodes the complexity of the human E3 ligome

2026-02-10 · Source: Machine learning : nature.com subject feeds · Field: Science & Research — Life Sciences & Biology, Mathematics & Computational Sciences · Depth: Expert, quick

Summary

An Author Correction published on February 10, 2026, addresses an omission in the original article titled "Multi-scale classification decodes the complexity of the human E3 ligome," which was initially published online on December 25, 2025. The correction specifically adds Ronay Cetin from the Institute of Biochemistry II, Faculty of Medicine, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, to the author list. This update has been applied to both the HTML and PDF versions of the article, ensuring proper attribution for all contributors. The original article, published in Nature Communications volume 17, article number 1500 (2026), focuses on classifying the human E3 ligome.

Key takeaway

For researchers and journal editors involved in scientific publishing, ensuring the complete and accurate listing of all authors is paramount. This correction highlights the importance of meticulous review processes to prevent omissions, which can impact academic credit and institutional affiliation. Always double-check author lists before final publication to maintain the integrity of the scientific record and proper attribution.

Key insights

An author correction updated an article's author list to include a previously omitted contributor.

Principles

• Accurate author attribution is critical.
• Corrections ensure scientific record integrity.

In practice

• Verify author lists before publication.
• Issue corrections for omissions promptly.

Topics

• Author Correction
• Scientific Publishing
• Research Attribution
• E3 Ligome
• Multi-scale Classification

Best for: AI Researcher, AI Scientist, Research Scientist

Related on AIssential

• Attributing and situating knowledge cannot be left to language models — LLMs cannot reliably handle scholarly attribution, risking miscitation and undermining research standards.
• Would a new result in pre-print be considered by reviewers? [D] — Reviewers should consider updated preprints to prioritize scientific truth over strict adherence to submitted versions.
• Churn Without Fragmentation: How a Party-Label Bug Reversed My Headline Finding — Categorical data errors can propagate through pipelines, distorting metrics and leading to incorrect analytical conclusions.
• The Ghost Couple: Correlated LLM Name Priors and Their Haunting of the Web and Academic Publishing — LLMs generate correlated fictional character ensembles, not just individual names, leading to widespread ghost authorship in academic repositories.
• Greater than 80% of researchers at CVPR are chinese. This speak volumes on the chinese nexus in research, and something needs to be done about it. [D] — The integrity of machine learning conference peer review is widely perceived as compromised by systemic biases and quality issues.
• A key science publishing platform is cracking down on AI slop — arXiv's ban on AI-error papers highlights the challenge of maintaining research quality amidst rising AI-generated content.

Open in AIssential →

Editorial summary, takeaway, and curation by AIssential. Original article published by Machine learning : nature.com subject feeds.