Prepare a traceable report of an error in your published article
Prepare a factual report of a suspected error in your own published article, with an original fictional correction-record example.
About 4 min read · Allow extra time for the practical checks
Identify the exact published error, explain the change you propose and state what you have checked about its consequences. Contact the journal through its current process with a clear record. A proposed correction is not an approved change, and editing your own working file does not update the published article.
This guide concerns preparing a factual report about your own work. It does not decide whether a real paper needs a correction, an expression of concern or retraction, assess research validity, or provide legal advice. Follow the journal’s actual policy and involve the relevant authors and specialists where their input is needed.
Identify the published version and the precise location
Record the article’s citation and DOI, then locate the issue in the actual published version rather than only in a local manuscript. Identify the page, section, figure, table or supplementary file clearly enough that another person can find it.
PLOS’s post-publication policy asks authors reporting a possible error to provide identifying details, a description and proposed correction material; editorial assessment determines the response. Treat that as an example of a documented journal process, not a guarantee that every publisher uses the same route or accepts every requested change.
Distinguish what the publication says from what your notes say it should have said. Preserve the wording needed to identify the error and the evidence supporting the proposed replacement. Do not silently overwrite the record you need to explain.
Separate the proposed wording from the impact assessment
State the existing content and your proposed replacement in separate fields. Then explain which other statements or files you have checked for a related problem. A short replacement does not necessarily imply a small consequence.
Be explicit about uncertainty. If checking the effect requires expertise or material you do not have, report that limitation rather than asserting that the conclusions are unaffected. An editor needs an accurate description of the unresolved issue, not reassurance chosen to make the request easier to approve.
Build an original fictional correction record
The article and editorial situation below are entirely invented teaching material. No real error, author, journal request or editorial decision is described.
Imagine a fictional discussion of exhibition leaflets in which a sentence calls the item in Illustration B “Leaflet A.” The author suspects a label mismatch and is preparing a report, not deciding the appropriate publication notice.
| Field | Fictional record | What still needs checking |
|---|---|---|
| Location | Sentence referring to Illustration B | Confirm against the published article and any separate figure file |
| Existing wording | Leaflet A | Preserve the exact location and wording in the report |
| Proposed wording | Leaflet B | Check that the proposed identifier matches the intended item |
| Possible related locations | Caption and discussion references | Record the checks and any other affected passages |
| Current status | Proposal prepared | Journal assessment and publication update are not completed |
The fictional report should not say “the article has been corrected.” Nor should it claim that the mismatch has no effect on interpretation before checking how the discussion uses the two items. The useful record connects a precise proposed change to the work still required.
Use the journal’s process and track the actual response
Check the current author or post-publication instructions and supply the requested materials through the specified channel. Keep your account factual and proportionate. Do not guess who caused the error or imply that co-authors have agreed when that has not been established.
Retain the material sent, the date, the response and any requested follow-up. Distinguish acknowledgement, a request for information, an editorial decision and an actual published update. The journal may use a different remedy from the one you initially expected.
Use the page-proof guide for the earlier task of checking proofs before publication. Use the published-corrections guide when checking the status of an article you plan to rely on. Once the journal reports a completed update, inspect the actual public record and linked notice as appropriate before describing the change as published.
