Only accepted work is recordedAboutGuidesContactSign in
CitePepCitePep
Guides/Publishers/Handling a correction on a published page
For publishers15 min read · Intermediate · Updated Sep 2026

Handling a correction on a published page

A correction is someone telling you, with evidence, that your page is wrong. Handled well, it takes a few minutes and leaves a public record of the care you take. This guide covers how to check one, how to decide, what to do in the harder cases, and how to run it across an editorial team.

2.4 daysmedian decision time on CitePep
3 minutesto check a well-written correction
0declines ever shown publicly

1What arrives

Each correction lands in Incoming work with five parts. Everything you need to decide is on one card.

Publisher dashboard · Incoming workIllustrative
APageArctic ice extent, 2025 · publisher.example/arctic
BChangeMinimum extent 3.2 → 4.28 million km² (Sept 2025)
CReasonThe page gives the 2012 record low as the 2025 figure.
DSourceNSIDC Sea Ice Index, v3, September 2025 monthly
EContributorEmir Baycan · Expert · trust 96% · climate authority 92 · no declared interest
AcceptAsk a questionDecline

2The three-minute check

StepWhat to look forRed flag
Read the change (B)One fact changed; everything else untouchedA rewritten paragraph
Open the source (D)The figure appears, for the same period and definitionThe source says something close but different
Read the reason (C)It names the error, not the writer’s taste"Could be clearer", "feels outdated"
Glance at the contributor (E)Relevant topic authority; independentA declared interest in a competitor

If the change and source check out, the contributor’s reputation shouldn’t sway you either way. A correct fix from a newcomer is still correct.

3Judging the source

Source typeHow much weightTypical example
Primary data or guidelineDecide on it aloneNSIDC dataset, NICE guideline
Synthesis reportStrong; check the sectionIPCC AR6 chapter
Peer-reviewed paperStrong if recent and currentNature, 2018
News or explainerAsk for what it citesA newspaper article
Uncited web pageDeclineAnother blog

Period and definition

The most common near-miss is a correct figure for the wrong thing: a different year, a different baseline, "extent" instead of "area". If the proposal is right but the page was measuring something else, ask: the fix may be to clarify the page rather than change the number.

4Reading the contributor signals

SignalWhat it tells youWhat it leaves alone
Trust scoreHow often their work is accepted elsewhereWhether this proposal is right
Topic authorityDepth of accepted work in this subjectFormal credentials
LevelVolume and identity checksSeniority
Declared interestsRelationships they’ve disclosedUndisclosed ones: report those

5Accept, ask or decline

Accept
  • Source is primary and says what is claimed
  • Change is narrow and exact
  • Applies to your page as written
Ask
  • Source is right but the period or definition is unclear
  • Change is correct but slightly too broad
  • You need the table or page number
Decline
  • Opinion or style, not an error
  • Secondary or uncited source
  • Source contradicts the proposal

When in doubt, ask. A question costs the contributor a minute; a wrongful decline costs you a correct fix and them the credit.

6Asking a good question

Hard to answer"Are you sure about this?"
Easy to answer"Is 4.28 the September monthly mean or the daily minimum? Our page refers to the daily minimum."

The proposal stays pending while you talk. The contributor answers on the same thread, and you decide once you have what you need.

7Applying it to your page

Accepting records the correction on CitePep. You still make the edit in your CMS: your page stays in your hands. Once you do, the attribution block updates on its own.

Before
Verified contribution history
Written byAuthor
Reviewed byReviewer
Last change21 Jun 2026
After accepting
Verified contribution history
Written byAuthor
Corrected byReviewer
Last change23 Sep 2026
Good practice on the page itself
  • Update the sentence exactly as proposed, or tell the contributor if you adapt it
  • Update the "last reviewed" date if your template has one
  • If the error mattered to readers, a dose, a deadline, add a short correction note on the page

8Harder cases

SituationWhat to do
Two corrections to the same sentenceDecide the first submitted first. The second contributor is told and can add a source instead.
A correction to a correctionAccept it like any other. The earlier entry is marked superseded and stays on record.
Medical, legal or financial pagesWhere the change affects what a reader might do, prefer a specialist review before accepting.
You think the contributor has a conflictPause and report it through the complaints process.
The contributor disagrees with your declineThey can propose again with new evidence, or raise it with the standards team.

9Running it as a team

Larger publishers usually split the work. CitePep supports this with roles on your publisher account.

RoleCanTypically
AdminEverything, including billing and sitesHead of content
EditorAccept, ask, decline; open requestsSection editors
ViewerSee incoming work and historyLegal, compliance
A simple routine
  • Assign incoming work by section each morning
  • Aim to decide within three working days
  • Review declines weekly for patterns: a run of similar corrections often means a page needs a full review

10Checklist

Was this guide useful? Yes · NoOpen incoming work →