A research resource should improve when an error is found. Quietly replacing a number or changing a molecular name may fix the current page while leaving earlier readers unable to understand why their saved copy differs.
Distinguish corrections from ordinary updates
A correction repairs something that was wrong or misleading in the earlier resource. An update adds information that became available later. Both can be useful, but they tell different stories about the historical content.
PLOS describes linked correction notices for errors affecting an article’s content or understanding, with separate treatment for minor typographical issues. Its journal policy is an example of visible correction practice, not a policy automatically governing every educational website.PLOS One — Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions (opens in a new tab)
For a research hub, define a practical threshold: changes to identity, numerical results, units, source attribution or the strength of a scientific conclusion normally deserve a substantive record.
A spacing adjustment or a repaired decorative alignment may only need an internal edit history. The purpose of a reader-facing log is to explain changes that could affect understanding, not to overwhelm readers with every keystroke.
Write a correction entry that explains the change
| Field | What to record |
|---|---|
| Date and resource | When the correction was made and the affected article/version |
| Affected statement | The section, table or claim that needed correction |
| Problem | A concise description of the error |
| Replacement | The corrected value or interpretation |
| Evidence and impact | Why it changed and whether the conclusion changes |
An invented example might say that a table previously labelled an area percentage as a mass percentage. The correction should name the basis error, provide the corrected label and explain that calculations relying on the old interpretation have been removed or revised.
Do not use vague wording such as “minor improvements” for a change that materially narrows a claim. Readers need enough detail to determine whether the correction affects how they used the information.
Keep the entry factual and focused on the resource. A correction notice does not need speculation about how the error happened or blame directed at a source, editor or software tool.
Find every affected appearance
Search for the erroneous statement in summaries, comparison tables, captions and downloadable versions. Correcting the main paragraph is insufficient if a prominent takeaway continues to repeat the old conclusion.
Check related articles that reuse the same value or identity assumption. A single source transcription may feed several explanations, and each needs assessment rather than an automatic global substitution.
If the issue cannot yet be resolved, make the uncertainty visible and avoid leaving a disputed assertion presented as settled. Record what remains under review and what evidence would resolve it.
Check the corrected resource
Read the replacement wording in context and verify that units, headings and linked sources agree. A corrected table can still conflict with an introductory sentence written around the old value.
Confirm that the correction entry identifies the right article and remains accessible from the affected content. Where a downloadable copy is replaced, make its version clear so readers can distinguish it from an older file.
Record who performed the editorial check and what was checked, without implying independent scientific review if none occurred. The review description should be as precise as the correction itself.
A correction log is useful because it keeps improvement visible. It allows readers to understand both the current explanation and the route by which it changed, instead of treating the page as an unchanging authority.
Sources and further detail
- PLOS One — Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions (opens in a new tab)
Current publisher policy inspected for substantive corrections and linked notices. The website log structure is original and is not presented as PLOS policy or an existing Novum operational process.
Sources checked 20 September 2026. Editorial examples are illustrative unless a supplied document or published study is explicitly identified. This article has not undergone independent scientific peer review.