Corrections, Clarifications and Withdrawals

Accuracy is an ongoing obligation. The Mandamus corrects material errors openly, distinguishes correction from update and preserves an intelligible record of what changed.

Correction

A correction is required where a material statement, quotation, citation, date, identity, calculation or description was wrong. It states the error, the correction and the date of change. Material corrections are not silently folded into the article.

Clarification

A clarification improves precision where the original statement was not necessarily false but could reasonably mislead. It explains the point clarified and may be added to the article record.

Update

An update records a later development—such as a new judgment, statutory amendment or institutional response—that changes the context without making the original publication inaccurate at the time it appeared.

Withdrawal

Withdrawal may be appropriate where the central evidentiary basis is unreliable, plagiarism is established, serious legal or ethical harm cannot be repaired by correction, or the article’s integrity has otherwise collapsed. The permanent URL should ordinarily remain with a dated explanation.

How to request review

1. Identify the publication and exact disputed passage.
2. Explain the alleged error precisely.
3. Provide the best available authority or evidence.
4. State the correction or clarification requested.
5. Disclose any relevant involvement in the matter.

Requests are assessed by an editor who was not the author of the disputed passage where practicable. Disagreement with an argument is ordinarily addressed through response, not correction.

Classification of post-publication changes

Minor editTypography, formatting or a non-substantive link repair that does not alter meaning.

CorrectionA material error in fact, law, quotation, identity, date, calculation or description.

ClarificationLanguage that was defensible but insufficiently precise and could reasonably mislead.

UpdateA later event that changes context but does not make the original publication inaccurate when published.

Editor’s noteImportant context about review, dispute, provenance or temporary assessment.

WithdrawalThe article’s central integrity cannot be restored through narrower changes.

Assessment procedure

1. The request is logged with the article URL, disputed passage and supporting material.
2. An editor determines whether immediate protective action is needed.
3. The author and responsible editor are consulted unless delay or conflict makes that inappropriate.
4. Primary authority and relevant records are checked.
5. The decision and reasons are recorded.
6. Any public notice is written so readers can understand what changed without exposing unnecessary private information.

Timing and interim notices

Simple, verifiable errors should be corrected promptly. Complex disputes may require additional records, translation, specialist review or legal advice. Where the alleged error could cause continuing serious harm and cannot be resolved quickly, the journal may add an interim editor’s note, temporarily limit distribution or take another proportionate step without presuming the final outcome.

Preserving the record

Material notices remain attached to the permanent URL. The corrected article should not preserve false information in the visible body merely for historical completeness, but the notice should describe the original problem and correction. Search snippets, social posts and downloadable versions should be corrected where reasonably controllable.