Article–correction link record
Read the notice, not just its label
Publishers do not use “erratum”, “corrigendum” and “correction” completely uniformly. Examine what changed. A creator-name typo differs from a corrected table. An expression of concern is not an erratum; it signals unresolved issues. Retraction requires another workflow.
Some publishers update the full text and display a date. Others keep the original and publish a separate object. Preserve version and access date rather than relying on filenames.
Map the correction to your argument
Locate the change. Does it affect quoted words, a figure, sample size, table, creator or only presentation? Trace every sentence depending on it. A small numerical correction can reverse a ranking or calculation. Rerun dependent analysis.
If the correction invalidates your claim, a bibliography edit is insufficient. Revise claim, table and discussion. Where the conclusion remains stable, an internal note may be enough; where interpretation depends on the correction, make it visible in the text.
Which objects should be cited?
The corrected article normally remains the main source for its scholarly content. Cite the separate notice too when discussing the change, correcting an earlier value or relying on its information. Follow the required style for correction notices. Never merge identifiers: article and notice may have distinct DOI.
Example: “The initially reported sample was revised to X in the correction (Author, year; Correction, year). The calculation here uses the corrected version.” The internal record stores both identifiers, check date, affected passage and manuscript revision.
Workflow after finding a correction
- Open the official landing page and full text.
- Preserve notice type, date and identifier.
- Distinguish pre- and post-correction versions.
- Map affected passages and claims.
- Recheck quotations, numbers and calculations.
- Format article and notice according to style.
- Update the reference manager and every manuscript use.
- Archive the version and decision note.
The source evaluation hub covers publication status. Use retracted article guidance for a more serious notice. The citing sources overview covers formal references.
Worked example: a corrected table
An article reports a mean of 4.8 in table 3. A corrigendum changes it to 3.8 and replaces a chart. A student used 4.8 in a comparison table and conclusion. She preserves both states, checks the DOI relationship, replaces the value and reruns her calculation. Because the ranking changes, she revises the interpretation and cites the correction notice.
If only a creator's spelling changed, she would correct the bibliographic record while leaving the scholarly claim intact. The link record prevents both overreaction to a minor correction and understatement of a consequential one.
Final audit
- Is the current official article version identified?
- Are article and correction connected correctly?
- Was every affected manuscript passage located?
- Were dependent calculations rerun?
- Do quotation, location and record agree?
- Was retraction or expression of concern excluded?
- Is the old state retained as audit evidence?
Run a status check for central references shortly before submission. A check during early research may be stale months later. Record the cut-off date without suggesting that later changes are impossible.
Where a reference manager overwrites metadata automatically, review the change log. A new title or date can detach in-text citations from the version in your notes. Update deliberately and retain the previous record until every dependent location has been checked.
Maintain a correction record in practice
Create two linked records for an affected citation: one for the original article and one for the correction notice. Capture the DOI, title, date and status of each object. Add a short note identifying the affected element, such as Table 2, an authorship statement or a numerical result, and whether your own claim depends on it. This prevents a correction from being discovered but never evaluated.
If the notice fixes a typographical error that does not affect the claim you used, the article can remain the central reference, while the checked correction status stays in your research notes. If it changes a result, method or interpretation, reread the relevant passage and revise the paraphrase, number and conclusion. An old quotation should not survive merely because its locator still appears to work.
A retraction is fundamentally different from an erratum. A retracted article should not function as unqualified support for a current factual claim. If it remains necessary for research history, label the retracted status conspicuously and link the retraction notice. Finally, find every occurrence of the article across the manuscript: reference list, footnotes, tables, figures and argumentative passages. Updating all of them turns a metadata repair into a coherent correction of the work rather than leaving conflicting traces for the reader.