Corrections Policy
Corrections Policy
Last updated: January 2026 · Author: Giovanni Picaro
Every editorial publication makes mistakes. The difference between a trustworthy publication and an untrustworthy one is what happens after the mistake is discovered. This page describes, in detail, how Scanhua handles factual errors, outdated information, and editorial misjudgments. It is the public commitment that holds us to a clear standard.
1. The four types of post-publication change
We distinguish carefully between four kinds of changes we may make to a published article. Each is treated differently.
| Type | When it applies | How it is marked |
|---|---|---|
| Correction | A factual claim in the article was wrong | “Correction” note at the bottom with date and original error |
| Update | New information has emerged since publication that changes the picture | “Update” note dated, with a summary of what is new |
| Clarification | The original was technically accurate but reasonably misread | “Clarification” note explaining what was reasonably misread and why |
| Retraction | The article is fundamentally unsound and cannot be saved by correction | Visible retraction notice replacing the article, with explanation |
2. Corrections in detail
A correction is the appropriate response when an article contains a verifiably wrong factual claim. Examples include: a date stated incorrectly, an author’s name misspelled, a publication described as ongoing when it has actually concluded, a sales figure cited from an unreliable source.
When we make a correction, we do three things:
- Fix the error in the article body.
- Add a “Correction” note at the bottom of the article with the date, the original incorrect text, and the corrected version.
- If the error materially affected the article’s argument or conclusion, we say so explicitly in the note.
What we do not do: silently revise published material. Once an article has been read by a real reader, that reader is entitled to know if the article they read has been changed.
3. Updates in detail
An update is the appropriate response when something happens after publication that changes the picture, but the original article was correct as published. Examples include: a manga we reviewed as ongoing has now concluded; a publisher we covered has been acquired; an author about whom we wrote has died.
Updates are dated and summarized in a clearly marked note. We do not rewrite the original article to incorporate new information silently; the historical record of what we said when we said it remains intact.
4. Clarifications in detail
A clarification is the appropriate response when an article was technically accurate but used wording that a reasonable reader could misinterpret. This is rare but real. The clarification note explains the misreading and offers a corrected wording.
We use this category sparingly. Most apparent clarifications are actually corrections (the original was wrong) or refusals to clarify (the original was clear and the misreading is the reader’s). We try not to soften this distinction.
5. Retractions in detail
A retraction is the most serious response and is reserved for articles whose factual or analytical foundations have collapsed beyond repair. We have not had to retract an article in our history. If we did, the article would be replaced with a clear retraction notice explaining what was wrong, why we got it wrong, and what we are doing differently going forward.
Retracted articles do not vanish from the site. The URL continues to serve the retraction notice, so that any link to the original from elsewhere on the web reaches a clear explanation rather than a 404.
6. How to submit a correction request
If you have spotted an error in something we have published, we want to know about it. Please email info [at] scanhua [punto] site with the subject line Correction request: [URL] and include:
- The full URL of the article in question.
- The specific text that you believe is incorrect.
- What you believe the correct version should be.
- A source for the correct version, if available.
Most correction requests we receive are well-founded, and we are grateful for them. A few are based on misreadings of the article in question, and we will explain politely why we are not making the change. A very small number are bad-faith attempts to alter the editorial record on behalf of an interested party; we recognize these quickly and do not act on them.
7. Timing
We aim to respond to correction requests within 48 hours of receipt during business days. Simple corrections (date errors, name spellings, numerical facts) are typically made within the same response. More substantive corrections that require us to consult sources or rethink an argument may take a few additional days, and we will tell you that this is what is happening.
8. Corrections to images, captions, and metadata
The same standards apply to image captions, alt-text, social-media share metadata, and any other text we have published. If a caption is wrong, we correct it the same way we correct article body text.
9. Corrections in syndicated or republished content
Some Scanhua content is republished in newsletters, anthologies, or other contexts. When an article is corrected, we make a reasonable effort to notify any third party that has republished it. We cannot force corrections onto republished copies we do not control, but we do alert the republishers we know about.
10. The internal correction log
We maintain an internal log of every correction, update, clarification, and retraction we have issued. The log is not currently published in full; we may consider publishing aggregated statistics in the future as part of an annual transparency report. For specific inquiries about our correction history (researchers studying media accountability, for example), serious requests are entertained.
11. Why this matters
The phrase “trust but verify” applies in reverse to editorial publications. Readers cannot independently verify everything we publish; they have to trust us to verify before publishing and to correct quickly when we did not. The willingness to correct visibly — rather than silently scrub the record or refuse to acknowledge errors — is the most concrete form that trust takes.
For more on the editorial principles that govern Scanhua’s approach to publishing, read our Editorial Standards. For our practice of citing sources, read our Sources & Citations Policy. For our process from idea to publication, read How We Work.
Related pages: Editorial Standards · Sources & Citations · Methodology · How We Work · Report a Problem
