Policy and best practice: errata & corrigenda

October 2011 

For the purposes of this document the term Editor encompasses all Editor title variations and is limited to those that have final acceptance responsibility.

Policy a) Peer review

All content of an article undergoes peer-review, including all (types of) supplementary material, under the auspices of the Editor.

[Note: peer review of supplementary “data” files refers to the requirement of the reviewer to safeguard that there is a logical and consistent relationship established between the data and the conclusions rather than that the data themselves are correct. The exception policy is still under consideration]

All material pertaining to the article is submitted in one go at the start of the editorial review process.

Additional material may be requested by the Editor or reviewers during the peer review process in order to improve the article; all such additional material also undergoes peer review.

The Editor alone is responsible for accepting the article (in full) for publication.

Should an author want to add material to their article post-acceptance, the author informs the Editor and the article is re-reviewed

Should an author want to add material to their article post-publication:

[See elsewhere with regard to Elsevier’s retraction policy]

Policy b) Distinction between of Erratum and Corrigendum

Though not distinguished in dictionaries, the proposal is for Elsevier policy to follow the current convention:

The distinction should be strictly adhered when E&C are to be published.

Policy c) Notification of changes to the article

In all cases it is expected that it is the author who will notice (or be informed of) errors in their article post-publication. Elsevier should endeavour to make notification of published errors a simple process for the author and transparent to the reader. The following are proposed: