Corrections
A clear way to question our work and correct the record.
If something in our work is wrong, we want to hear about it. This process explains how to raise a concern, how we review it and how changes should appear on the record.
Tell us what needs checking
Use our contact form and choose “Correction or editorial feedback”, or email hello@evolvinghumanities.org with “Correction” and the article title in the subject line. Anyone can raise a factual concern, including readers, contributors and people mentioned in a story.
Include the article link, the specific statement or image caption you are questioning, and the correction you believe is needed. Link to supporting evidence where possible. You may attach a PDF through the contact form, but please remove unnecessary personal information and confidential source details.
How we review a request
- We identify the article and the disputed material, then review the evidence supplied with the request.
- We compare it with the sources used in the article and seek further information where the record is incomplete. The writer may be asked to explain the basis for a claim.
- We distinguish a factual error from a reasonable disagreement about analysis, criticism or opinion. An interpretation can be challenged without every challenge establishing a correction.
- We decide whether the article needs a correction, a clarification, an update or a more substantial editorial response, and explain the outcome to the person who contacted us where we have their details.
We aim to deal with concerns promptly, prioritizing errors that could cause harm or materially mislead readers. As a small volunteer-led team, we cannot promise a fixed response time. If you have not heard from us, please follow up using the same article link or any reference number you received.
Making changes visible
A material factual correction should carry a dated note on the article explaining what was wrong and what has been changed. A clarification should explain wording that was incomplete or misleading even where the underlying fact was accurate. An update should identify important new information that became available after publication.
Routine spelling, punctuation and formatting repairs may be made without a correction note when they do not change the meaning. We should not quietly rewrite a substantive claim in a way that hides an earlier error.
Serious problems and removal requests
If an article’s central finding cannot be supported, a visible editor’s note, withdrawal or retraction may be appropriate. We consider the seriousness of the issue, the evidence and any risk to the people concerned. Where a page is removed, we aim to leave a clear explanation unless privacy, safety or legal considerations prevent it.
Requests involving personal safety, identification, copyright or unlawful material should explain the concern and the page involved. A request to remove criticism is not by itself evidence that the criticism is inaccurate.
If you disagree with the outcome
You can ask us to reconsider and provide any evidence we have missed. Where practical, someone other than the original writer should take a further look. We will distinguish an unresolved factual concern from a difference in editorial judgment.
The purpose of this process is to improve the public record. We welcome clear, good-faith challenges and ask that correspondence remain respectful.