The Young Dentist aims to correct verified factual errors and keep important published information reasonably current.
Our corrections process distinguishes factual errors from clarification needs, later updates and editorial disagreement.
How We Review a Correction Request
- Identify the disputed claim. We determine whether the concern involves fact, interpretation, opinion, outdated information or incomplete context.
- Review the original source. Where possible, we check the evidence used when the article was published.
- Check additional evidence. This may include newer research, official documents, guidance, regulatory information or other reliable sources.
- Assess materiality. We consider whether the issue materially affects meaning, accuracy or reliability.
- Choose the appropriate action. The article may be corrected, clarified, updated or left unchanged depending on the evidence.
Possible Outcomes
Correction
Appropriate when information was materially inaccurate at the time it was published.
Clarification
Appropriate when wording could create a materially misleading or ambiguous impression without necessarily being factually false.
Update
Appropriate when the original information was accurate but important new information later became available.
No Change
Appropriate where the available evidence continues to support the published information.
Clinical, Research and Product Corrections
Clinical and patient-safety errors may require additional attention because inaccurate information can influence health decisions. Research coverage may require revision when a paper is corrected or retracted, important methodological information emerges, or the article mischaracterised the findings.
Companies may report factual errors using official specifications, regulatory documents or other verifiable primary material. A company's disagreement with an editorial assessment does not automatically establish a factual error.
Correction or Editorial Disagreement?
Historical Content, Removal and Updates
Older material may reflect the information and guidance available when it was published. Where archive content could create a materially misleading impression under current knowledge, context or links to newer information may be added.
Removal is not the normal response where correction or clarification is sufficient. Content may be removed in exceptional circumstances where continued publication is not justified.
Related Standards
This policy works alongside the Fact-Checking Policy, Editorial Policy, Ethics Policy and Reader Feedback.
Overall editorial responsibility sits with Elliot Rowan. See the Masthead.