Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Correction

Correction: Frankenstein, thematic analysis and generative artificial intelligence: Quality appraisal methods and considerations for qualitative research

  • Tanisha Jowsey,
  • Peta Stapleton,
  • Shawna Campbell,
  • Alexandra Davidson,
  • Cher McGillivray,
  • Isabella Maugeri,
  • Megan Lee,
  • Justin Keogh

S1 Table, S2 Table and S1 Fig are incorrect. Please view the correct S1 Table, S2 Table and S1 Fig below.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Reported quotes by human researchers and genAI (Copilot).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0337734.s001

(PDF)

S2 Table. Thematic analysis: Human compared with GenAI Copilot thematic analysis.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0337734.s002

(PDF)

S1 Fig. Human compared with Copilot accuracy of participant/document quotes.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0337734.s003

(PDF)

Reference

  1. 1. Jowsey T, Stapleton P, Campbell S, Davidson A, McGillivray C, Maugeri I, et al. Frankenstein, thematic analysis and generative artificial intelligence: Quality appraisal methods and considerations for qualitative research. PLoS One. 2025;20(9):e0330217. pmid:40911617

Citation: Jowsey T, Stapleton P, Campbell S, Davidson A, McGillivray C, Maugeri I, et al. (2025) Correction: Frankenstein, thematic analysis and generative artificial intelligence: Quality appraisal methods and considerations for qualitative research. PLoS One 20(11): e0337734. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0337734

Published: November 25, 2025

Copyright: © 2025 Jowsey et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.