A corrections policy for publishers is a public statement of how a publication handles factual errors. It explains how readers submit correction requests, who reviews the evidence, when a correction note appears and how corrected versions are recorded. Keep the policy short and attach it to a working editorial process. A public change log should record the article, error, corrected information and correction date. Reuters emphasizes transparent corrections across publishing formats. This guide shows small publishers how to create a usable corrections policy, distinguish corrections from updates and maintain accountable records without exposing private correspondence.
What should a corrections policy cover?
A corrections policy should cover reporting, review, decisions and public disclosure. Readers need a working route to flag an error and a clear explanation of what the publication will do with the report.
- Provide a contact route and the information needed to identify the claim.
- Name the editorial role responsible for reviewing reports.
- Explain when an article receives a visible correction note.
Reuters’ journalistic standards place transparent corrections within a broader commitment to accuracy. Your policy can be much shorter while retaining that responsibility. Do not promise a response time the team cannot reliably meet. Connect the process to the editorial workflow so a report becomes an assigned task rather than an unread inbox item.
How do you receive and assess correction requests?
Receive and assess correction requests through a monitored editorial contact route, with the disputed claim and supporting evidence recorded together. Compare the claim against its source before deciding whether the article needs a correction, clarification or no change.
- Record the article URL, disputed statement and submitted evidence.
- Compare the statement with the original source and relevant context.
- Ask the responsible editor to decide the correction and its scope.
- Record the decision and reply when appropriate.
Keep the submitter’s private details out of the public log unless there is a clear, authorized reason to include them. If the issue could materially mislead readers while being reviewed, consider a temporary editor’s note explaining the uncertainty. Avoid language that presents an unresolved allegation as an established fact.
How do you distinguish corrections from updates?
Distinguish corrections from updates by asking whether the original information was wrong when published. A correction repairs an existing factual error; an update adds later developments. A clarification explains an accurate statement more clearly without disguising an error.
- Correction: a chart used the wrong denominator.
- Update: a vendor changed a documented feature after publication.
- Clarification: an accurate passage needs a more explicit scope statement.
Use those labels honestly. Calling a factual error an “update” can hide what readers need to know. Google’s publication-date guidance recommends clear, consistent date information. Keep the original publication date and use a justified modified date for a substantive change. The content refresh framework helps determine whether a larger revision is also needed.
What should a public corrections log include?
A public corrections log should include the article title and URL, correction date, original error, corrected information and effect on the conclusion. Link the log entry to the corrected article and add a visible correction note there.
- Article title and permanent URL.
- Date of the correction and the affected passage or asset.
- Plain explanation of the error and corrected information.
- Whether the correction changes the main conclusion.
For example: “Correction: The checklist described an annual-prepaid subscription as month-to-month. The billing description has been corrected; the tool-selection criteria are unchanged.” This is a fictional wording example, not a correction to an actual article. A useful note states the substance of the error instead of merely saying that the page has been updated.
How do you correct distributed versions of an article?
Correct distributed versions by tracing where the incorrect claim appeared and addressing each copy that remains under your control. Fixing the source article does not repair an emailed chart or a partner’s syndicated version.
- Update the article, downloadable file and embedded graphic together.
- Identify summaries or social posts that repeated the error.
- Notify a distribution partner when its copy needs correction.
Record actions taken and any copies the publication cannot change. For an email already delivered, a follow-up may be more useful than editing only the web archive. Match the response to the significance of the mistake. Do not resend a misleading claim without enough explanation for readers to recognize what has changed and why it matters.
How do you maintain an accountable corrections workflow?
Maintain an accountable corrections workflow by retaining the decision record and checking that the public change matches it. Assign an editor who can inspect the original evidence as well as the final article.
- Keep the submitted evidence and editorial decision in a private record.
- Verify the corrected text, related assets and visible note.
- Review recurring error types when planning editorial improvements.
WordPress revision tools can help editors compare saved versions, but internal revisions do not replace a reader-facing correction note. Confirm what your site’s revision configuration actually retains. If errors repeatedly arise from copied figures, improve source records and checking at the assignment stage. The aim is to prevent repetition while keeping each correction clear and proportionate.
What else should a corrections policy explain?
Does every typo need a public correction?
A routine typo that does not change meaning can be fixed without a formal correction note under a clearly stated policy. A typo that changes a name, amount or factual meaning deserves a substantive review.
Should you delete an article after an error?
Deletion is not the default response to a correctable error. Assess whether a corrected article can still serve readers; if the publication withdraws it, explain the withdrawal appropriately rather than silently erasing the record.
Can an author approve their own correction?
An author can prepare the evidence and proposed fix, but a separate editorial review provides a useful check when staffing allows. If one person runs the publication, record the evidence and decision explicitly.
How can a small publication start a corrections log?
Create one corrections record with the fields above and test it against a fictional example before receiving a live complaint. Connect affected pages through the publication’s internal linking structure so readers can find the explanation. Keep the policy short enough that editors will use it consistently.
Explore more in Publishing.
Written by
Theo Bennett
Theo Bennett is the technical and measurement editor at Approve SEO. Theo covers crawler verification, website maintenance, analytics interpretation, software contracts and the limits of benchmark data. Articles draw on official documentation and other identified primary sources, with practical checks readers can reproduce on their own sites. Examples are labelled when they are illustrative rather than measured results. Theo's portrait is an illustration drawn in Approve SEO's house style. Source suggestions and corrections are handled through Approve SEO's editorial contact route.