🔬 Research
Journal Correction Request Writer for Published Articles: Error Inventory, Corrigendum vs Erratum vs Retraction Triage Using COPE Guidance, Impact on Conclusions, Correction Notice Text, Coauthor Approval, and an Editor Email
Fix a mistake in a published paper the right way: list each error with its exact location, decide whether it is an author corrigendum, a publisher erratum, or something more serious that needs the editor's judgment, state plainly whether the conclusions change, draft the correction notice text, collect coauthor approval, and write the email to the handling editor.
0Reviews
Prompt
Act as a research integrity officer and journal editorial board member who handles post publication corrections, follows COPE guidance, and knows editors respond faster when an author arrives with a precise error list and draft notice text. Inputs: - Article citation, DOI, journal, and publisher: [ArticleDetails] - Each error found: where it is (section, page, table, figure, supplement), what it says, and what it should say: [ErrorList] - How each error happened (author mistake in the submitted file, introduced during typesetting, data or code problem): [ErrorOrigin] - Whether results, statistics, or conclusions change, with recalculated values: [ImpactCheck] - Author list and who has already agreed to the correction: [Authors] - Output format: [Format] Generate: 1. An error inventory table from ErrorList: number, location, published text, corrected text, and type (typo, wrong value, mislabeled figure, missing funding or conflict statement, affiliation, reference). 2. Triage for each item using ErrorOrigin: corrigendum when the error came from the authors, erratum when it was introduced by the publisher during production, and "editor decision" when ImpactCheck shows a conclusion changes, a key result no longer holds, or data reliability is in doubt, where an expression of concern, retraction and replacement, or retraction may be considered. Explain each term in one line and let the editor make the call. 3. An impact statement per item and overall: state clearly whether conclusions change, using the recalculated values in ImpactCheck. Never soften a change that alters a finding. 4. Draft correction notice text in journal style: the article reference, each correction quoted as published and as corrected, and a closing line on whether conclusions are affected. Keep it factual, with no apology paragraph. 5. Supporting files to send: corrected table or figure files, a marked up copy, recalculation code or output when values changed. 6. A coauthor approval checklist from Authors: who must sign off, a plain message to send them, and a note that unresolved disagreement should go to the editor rather than be hidden. 7. An email to the handling editor or the journal's corrections contact: subject line, what was found and how, the triage, the draft notice attached, and an offer to answer questions. 8. Follow up items: check the notice links to the original article once published, update the version in institutional and preprint repositories with a link to the correction, and correct any derived data or code release. Constraints: - Do not invent page numbers, values, or journal policy; mark gaps [CHECK PUBLISHED PDF] or [CHECK JOURNAL POLICY]. - This is a drafting aid, not a misconduct determination. No em dashes.
Instructions
Replace every [bracket] with your details before running. Works on ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini.
Generated Output
This image was generated using the prompt above.
Examples
Example Input
ArticleDetails: Okafor, Lindqvist, Patel (2026), "Sleep regularity and exam performance in first year engineering students", Journal of Student Health Research, DOI 10.5555/jshr.2026.0142 ErrorList: (1) Table 3 regression coefficient for sleep regularity index printed as 0.42, should be 0.24; (2) Results paragraph 2 says "n = 318", should be "n = 312" after exclusions; (3) Figure 2 y axis label reads "Hours" but plots minutes; (4) funding statement omits a university seed grant SG-2291 ErrorOrigin: items 1, 2, and 4 were in our submitted files; item 3 was correct in our proof but the typeset figure swapped the label ImpactCheck: reran models, coefficient 0.24 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.39), p still under .01; the direction and significance are unchanged; abstract reports no coefficient Authors: Okafor (corresponding) and Patel agreed; Lindqvist on leave, not yet asked Format: tables, notice text, emails
Example Output
1) ERROR INVENTORY | # | Location | Published | Corrected | Type | | 1 | Table 3, row 2 | 0.42 | 0.24 | Wrong value | | 2 | Results, paragraph 2 | n = 318 | n = 312 | Wrong value | | 3 | Figure 2, y axis | Hours | Minutes | Mislabeled figure | | 4 | Funding statement | (seed grant missing) | adds seed grant SG-2291 | Missing funding | Page numbers: [CHECK PUBLISHED PDF]. 2) TRIAGE - Items 1, 2, 4: corrigendum. The errors were in the authors' submitted files. - Item 3: erratum. The proof was correct and the label changed in production. - Editor decision items: none. The corrected coefficient keeps the same direction and significance. Corrigendum: a correction of an author error. Erratum: a correction of a publisher error. Retraction or expression of concern: used when findings or data reliability fail, decided by the editor. 3) IMPACT Item 1 halves the reported effect size from 0.42 to 0.24 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.39). Significance and direction are unchanged, but the effect is smaller than published. The Discussion calls the association "strong" [CHECK PUBLISHED PDF]; if so, propose changing it to "moderate" in the notice. Items 2 to 4 do not affect results. 4) DRAFT NOTICE Correction to: Okafor, Lindqvist, Patel (2026). Sleep regularity and exam performance in first year engineering students. Journal of Student Health Research. https://doi.org/10.5555/jshr.2026.0142 In Table 3, the coefficient for the sleep regularity index was published as 0.42. The correct value is 0.24 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.39). In the Results, paragraph 2, "n = 318" should read "n = 312". In Figure 2, the y axis label "Hours" should read "Minutes". The Funding statement should also include university seed grant SG-2291. The corrected coefficient is smaller than originally reported. The direction and statistical significance of the association are unchanged, and the conclusions of the article are not affected. 5) SUPPORTING FILES Corrected Table 3, corrected Figure 2 file, marked up PDF, model output from the rerun. 6) COAUTHOR APPROVAL [x] Okafor [x] Patel [ ] Lindqvist Message: "We found four errors in our 2026 JSHR paper, including a Table 3 coefficient that should be 0.24, not 0.42. Conclusions are unchanged. The draft notice is attached. Please reply with approval or concerns by Friday." If Lindqvist cannot be reached, tell the editor rather than submitting without mention. 7) EDITOR EMAIL Subject: Correction request, DOI 10.5555/jshr.2026.0142 Dear Editor, While reusing our code, we found four errors in our published article. Three came from our submitted files (Table 3 coefficient, sample size in the Results, funding statement) and one appears to have been introduced in production (Figure 2 axis label). We reran the models: the corrected coefficient is 0.24, and the direction and significance are unchanged. A draft notice, corrected files, and model output are attached. Two of three authors have approved; we are contacting the third. Kind regards, Dr. Okafor 8) FOLLOW UP Check the published notice links to the article, add the correction link to the preprint and repository record, and fix the value in the shared results file.