Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article

Comment: Mislabeled References in Kirby et al. (2016)

Posted by rkirby on 30 Dec 2016 at 17:22 GMT

When we added references during the revision process for this paper, we failed to detect that this resulted in the mislabeling of a number of subsequent references, as follows: in the Limitations section of the Discussion, in paragraph 2 on line 4, reference “58” should be “67”; in paragraph 2 on line 6, reference “59” should be “68”; in paragraph 3 on line 3, reference “60” should be “69”; in paragraph 8 on line 2, reference “61” should be “58”; in paragraph 8 on line 3, reference “62” should be “59”; and in paragraph 9 on line 2, references “63,64” should be “60,61”; additionally, in the Conclusions section, in paragraph 1 on line 4, references “65-69” should be “62-66”. I apologize to the readers for this oversight.

No competing interests declared.
report a concern respond to this posting