ScienceGuardians™ Ethical Guidelines for Corrections (Erratum / Corrigendum)

1. Rationale

Corrections are intended to preserve the integrity of the scientific record by formally addressing errors in published work. In principle, they serve an important and legitimate function within scholarly publishing.

In practice, however, the correction process is often treated too casually.

Authors may issue corrections prematurely, narrowly, or under external pressure without first determining whether the identified issue is isolated or whether additional errors remain undiscovered elsewhere in the work. In some cases, corrections are pursued for minor issues that do not materially affect scientific rigor, results, or conclusions, while in other cases, a correction is used where the more appropriate course may be retraction.

A poorly prepared correction can create additional confusion rather than restore clarity.

The mission of ScienceGuardians™ is to promote:

– scientific rigor,
– responsible authorship,
– proportional editorial action, and
– transparency in the scientific record.

2. Core Principles

Principle 1. Corrections are for substance, not appearance

A correction should be issued only when an error materially affects scientific rigor, reported results, interpretation, or conclusions — not for cosmetic concerns or reputational management.

Principle 2. One correction should be complete

A correction should never address only the first visible problem while leaving the rest of the article unchecked. Authors have an ethical duty to re-review the work in full before seeking formal amendment.

Principle 3. Reanalysis is part of correction

A correction is not merely an acknowledgment of an error. It is an obligation to determine whether the error reveals broader weaknesses in data, methods, logic, or references.

Principle 4. Correction must not replace retraction

If reanalysis shows that the work is no longer scientifically reliable, a correction is no longer sufficient, and voluntary retraction should be seriously considered.

Principle 5. Transparency must remain central

Any correction should clearly explain what was wrong, what has changed, and whether the conclusions of the work remain supported.

3. Summary

ScienceGuardians™ Position:

– Corrections should be used only for meaningful errors.
– Corrections should never be issued reflexively or under outside pressure alone.
– Every correction should trigger a full re-review of the affected work.
– References should be rechecked for retraction status before a correction is submitted.
– If reliability no longer stands, retraction should be considered instead.
– Correction language should be precise, transparent, and scientifically honest.

🔱 ScienceGuardians™ supports correction of the scientific record — but only when the correction process itself is conducted with rigor.

The following ScienceGuardians™ guidelines provide a practical framework for determining when a correction is appropriate, how it should be prepared, and when a correction should instead lead to voluntary retraction.

Download PDF file

SG-CEC-26-02-01.pdf