Errors may arise during research, manuscript preparation, editorial processing, or publication production. They may concern citations, translations, textual references, author information, research data, figures, analytical explanations, or other elements of a scholarly publication. The appropriate editorial response depends on whether the error affects the interpretation, reliability, or principal conclusions of the work.

CPRT distinguishes minor technical amendments from formal scholarly corrections. Where an error is limited and can be corrected without undermining the article's central argument or findings, a correction may be appropriate. Where the reliability of the principal scholarly contribution is substantially compromised, the journal considers further action under its Retractions, Corrections & Expressions of Concern Policy.

This policy explains the categories of corrections, procedures for reporting and evaluating errors, requirements for publication notices, the relationship between corrections and retractions, author responsibilities, and the editorial authority governing post-publication amendments.

Types of Corrections

CPRT determines the appropriate category of correction by considering the origin of the error, its effect on the published work, and the level of documentation necessary to maintain an accurate and traceable scholarly record.

Minor Corrections

Minor corrections concern errors that are purely technical, typographical, or presentational and that do not materially affect the meaning, interpretation, attribution, or reliability of the published article.

Such errors may include:

• Typographical or spelling errors that do not change the meaning of the text.
• Non-substantive grammatical or punctuation mistakes.
• Formatting inconsistencies affecting spacing, typography, or visual presentation.
• Minor layout or typesetting defects that do not alter scholarly content.
• Technical presentation issues that can be resolved without changing the interpretation of the publication.

Minor corrections may be implemented through routine editorial or production maintenance without publishing a separate formal correction notice, provided that the change has no substantive academic effect. The editorial office should retain an appropriate internal record of amendments to published files.

A change must not be classified as minor merely because it involves a short passage or a small amount of text. Alterations to a significant quotation, translation, source attribution, research finding, or philosophical argument may require formal documentation even where the textual change is limited.

Silent replacement of published content must not be used to conceal substantive errors or materially change the published Version of Record without appropriate disclosure.

Author Corrections

An Author Correction may be issued when an error originating in the author-prepared or author-approved manuscript requires formal amendment after publication. Such corrections are appropriate when the identified problem affects the accuracy or interpretation of particular elements of the article but does not invalidate its principal scholarly contribution.

An Author Correction may address:

• Citation inaccuracies: Incorrect bibliographic information, inaccurate textual locators, or mistaken source references.
• Translation or transcription errors: Errors in the presentation of source-language passages, translations, transliterations, or manuscript transcriptions.
• Limited analytical inaccuracies: Specific statements or interpretations requiring amendment where the central argument remains sufficiently reliable.
• Data or figure errors: Incorrect values, labels, tables, or visual elements that do not invalidate the main findings.
• Authorship and acknowledgements: Errors or omissions concerning author information, acknowledgements, or contributor attribution, subject to appropriate verification.
• Research declarations: Incorrect or incomplete funding statements, competing-interest disclosures, data availability information, or other publication declarations.

In comparative philosophy and religious studies, errors involving primary texts, historical sources, philosophical terminology, and translations must be assessed in relation to their significance for the author's argument. A correction is appropriate only when the publication remains reliable after the identified issue has been addressed.

An Author Correction must identify the relevant error, provide the corrected information, and remain linked to the original publication. Where necessary, the notice should explain whether the correction affects the article's interpretation or conclusions.

Publisher Corrections

A Publisher Correction may be issued when a material error is introduced during editorial processing, copyediting, typesetting, file conversion, metadata preparation, or another stage of publication production.

Examples include:

• The omission, duplication, or alteration of substantive text during production.
• Incorrect presentation of quotations, classical-language characters, diacritics, or transliterations.
• Production errors affecting tables, figures, footnotes, or bibliography entries.
• Incorrect author names, affiliations, article titles, or publication metadata introduced during processing.
• Publication files that differ materially from the final approved manuscript.

A Publisher Correction should identify the affected publication and explain the error introduced during the publication process. Where relevant, the notice should provide the corrected content and indicate whether the article's substantive findings or conclusions are affected.

Routine technical defects that do not affect scholarly content may be addressed as minor corrections. Material errors that alter the meaning, interpretation, or reliability of published content require more transparent documentation.

Correction Procedure

A correction request may be submitted by an author, editor, reader, reviewer, institution, or another party who identifies a potential error in a published article. The editorial office evaluates the request according to the seriousness of the issue and its potential effect on the reliability of the publication.

A request should provide, where applicable:

• The title and identifying details of the affected article.
• The location of the error, including relevant page numbers, sections, paragraphs, tables, figures, or references.
• A clear description of the error and the proposed correction.
• Supporting source material or other relevant evidence.
• An explanation of whether the error affects the article's findings, arguments, interpretations, or conclusions.

Stages of Editorial Assessment

The correction process normally involves the following stages:

1. Receipt and identification. The editorial office records the request and identifies the relevant article, version, and published material.
2. Preliminary verification. The responsible editor examines the reported error, considers the supporting evidence, and determines whether the concern is credible and material.
3. Author consultation. Authors are contacted where relevant and given an appropriate opportunity to explain the error, provide supporting information, or comment on the proposed correction.
4. Assessment of scholarly impact. The editor determines whether the issue is non-substantive, requires a formal correction, or raises a broader concern about the reliability of the article.
5. Preparation of the correction. Where a formal notice is warranted, the editorial office prepares a clear account of the error, the corrected information, and its implications for the publication.
6. Editorial approval. The Editor-in-Chief or another appropriately authorised editor reviews the proposed action and approves the final form of the correction.
7. Publication and record maintenance. The formal notice is published and linked to the original article. Relevant files and metadata are updated where appropriate, while preserving the traceability of the publication record.

Consultation and Independent Verification

Where an error concerns specialised philosophical interpretation, historical sources, classical-language translation, empirical analysis, or another technically complex issue, the journal may seek advice from an independent specialist with appropriate expertise.

The editorial office should assess the significance of the error without treating reasonable scholarly disagreement as an established factual mistake. A correction must be based on an identifiable issue requiring amendment to the publication record.

Authors' agreement is desirable where they have relevant information concerning the proposed change. However, the journal retains responsibility for the accuracy of its publication record and may issue a justified correction where the available evidence warrants action, even if author agreement cannot be obtained.

Correction requests should be handled without unnecessary delay. The journal does not guarantee a uniform processing period, as the time required depends on the nature of the error, the information available, and whether additional scholarly or ethical assessment is necessary.

Transparency and Linking

Formal corrections must be documented in a manner that enables readers to identify the original error, understand the amended information, and determine whether the correction affects the interpretation or conclusions of the article.

A formal Correction Notice should:

• Be separately identifiable: Be published as a distinct correction record, clearly labelled according to the applicable correction category.
• Identify the original article: Provide the article title, relevant author information, publication details, and DOI or other persistent identifier where available.
• Describe the error: Identify the affected passage, reference, figure, table, declaration, or other relevant component.
• Provide corrected information: Present the relevant replacement text, amended reference, corrected value, or other necessary clarification.
• Explain scholarly implications: State whether and how the correction affects the interpretation, evidence, findings, or conclusions of the publication.
• Maintain bidirectional links: Provide a link to the original article and ensure that the original article record prominently identifies the correction.
• Remain publicly accessible: Be available to readers without subscription or access charges.
• Preserve traceability: Maintain an identifiable record of the editorial action and its relationship to the published Version of Record.

DOI and Publication Metadata

A Correction Notice may receive its own DOI or other persistent identifier where supported by the journal's actual registration arrangements. The absence of a separate DOI does not remove the journal's responsibility to publish an identifiable notice and establish a clear relationship with the affected article.

Where an article or correction has a registered DOI, the journal should maintain accurate bibliographic information and use available mechanisms for recording the correction relationship in the relevant registration service.

DOI registration and metadata updates must reflect actual completed registration activities. The journal should not imply that an external registration service has been updated until the relevant changes have been carried out.

Version of Record and File Amendments

The original publication must remain identifiable following a formal correction. Where an updated article file is issued, the relationship between the correction and the amended material should be documented appropriately.

The journal may update an article's HTML, PDF, or other publication files where this is necessary to provide readers with accurate corrected content. Such updates must not conceal the earlier error or prevent readers from identifying the associated Correction Notice.

The correction status should be clear on the article landing page and, where technically practicable, within updated full-text files. Readers should not need to rely solely on an unrelated announcement to discover that a material correction has been made.

Distinction from Retraction

Corrections and retractions serve different purposes within the maintenance of the scholarly record. A correction addresses an identifiable error while preserving a publication whose principal findings, arguments, and conclusions remain sufficiently reliable. Retraction identifies a publication that should no longer be relied upon because of serious reliability problems or other grounds warranting that action.

The appropriate response depends on the consequences of the error rather than solely on its apparent form or origin. For example, a mistranslated term may justify a correction where the central analysis remains valid, but a mistranslation that undermines the article's principal philosophical argument may require consideration of retraction.

Where significant concerns arise but the evidence remains insufficient for a definitive determination, the journal may consider an Expression of Concern. Such notices inform readers of unresolved matters without presenting allegations as established findings.

The discovery of an ethical concern does not automatically require retraction. The editorial team must assess the seriousness of the issue, its evidential basis, and its effect on the reliability or legitimacy of the published work.

When a correction is insufficient to address a substantial reliability problem, CPRT follows the procedures established in its Retractions, Corrections & Expressions of Concern Policy. The journal's response must remain proportionate, evidence-based, and directed toward maintaining an accurate scholarly record.

Author Responsibility

Authors retain responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of their research following publication. If an author discovers a significant error, incomplete attribution, misleading statement, or other problem affecting the published article, the author must notify the CPRT Editorial Office promptly.

Authors are expected to:

• Report significant errors or omissions as soon as they become known.
• Identify the affected portions of the publication clearly.
• Provide accurate replacement information and relevant supporting sources or evidence.
• Explain whether the issue affects the article's principal argument, findings, or conclusions.
• Cooperate with reasonable requests for clarification or further documentation.
• Inform co-authors of material correction requests and communicate their positions to the editorial office where relevant.

Authors should not attempt to alter the published scholarly record independently by distributing an unlabelled replacement version while presenting it as identical to the journal's Version of Record. Formal changes to the published article must be coordinated with the editorial office where necessary.

Where an author disagrees with a reported error or a proposed correction, the author should provide a reasoned explanation supported by relevant evidence. Legitimate scholarly disagreement will be considered independently of the question of whether a verifiable publication error exists.

The correction process is intended to improve the accuracy and reliability of the published record. A correction does not necessarily indicate misconduct, and the journal should not characterise an honest mistake as deliberate wrongdoing without appropriate evidence.

Editorial Discretion

The Editor-in-Chief or another duly authorised responsible editor retains final editorial authority over the correction of published content. Decisions are based on the accuracy and reliability of the publication, the available evidence, the significance of the reported error, and the journal's responsibility to maintain an accurate scholarly record.

Editorial discretion includes responsibility for:

• Determining necessity: Deciding whether a reported issue requires a correction, further investigation, or no formal editorial action.
• Assessing scholarly consequences: Evaluating whether the publication's central arguments and findings remain reliable after the identified error is addressed.
• Selecting the appropriate correction: Distinguishing routine technical amendments, Author Corrections, Publisher Corrections, and other formal notices.
• Approving public notices: Ensuring that the wording of Correction Notices is accurate, proportionate, and sufficiently informative.
• Maintaining publication records: Directing the appropriate linking, labelling, and updating of article files and publication metadata.
• Managing competing interests: Reassigning a case where the responsible editor has a conflict that could compromise independent assessment.
• Determining further action: Referring substantial unresolved concerns to the procedures governing Expressions of Concern, retractions, or other appropriate editorial measures.

Independence and Fairness

Decisions concerning corrections must be made independently of Article Processing Charges, funding arrangements, institutional relationships, commercial interests, or other inappropriate influences.

Authors and other relevant parties should be provided with an appropriate opportunity to clarify material concerns. Where the available evidence requires specialised evaluation, the journal may consult independent experts before determining the appropriate correction.

A correction request may be declined when the reported matter does not establish an error, concerns a legitimate difference of philosophical or interpretive judgement, or does not require alteration of the published scholarly record.

Authors who believe that a correction decision rests on a material factual error or procedural irregularity may submit a reasoned request for reconsideration. Such requests should identify the relevant publication, explain the grounds for reconsideration, and provide supporting information where appropriate.

Contact and Submission of Correction Requests

Requests for corrections, enquiries concerning published material, or information relating to a potential post-publication error should be directed to the CPRT Editorial Office.

CPRT seeks to address post-publication errors responsibly, transparently, and without unnecessary delay. The journal's editorial discretion is exercised to protect the reliability of published scholarship and to maintain confidence in the integrity of the academic record.