Corrections, Revisions and Withdrawal Policy

This policy explains how errors are reported and reviewed, the difference among minor correction, material correction, revision, reissue, and withdrawal, and how versions, records, and notifications are managed.

Users may report an incorrect figure, inconsistency, translation problem, broken link, privacy concern, or misleading use. The report should identify the page or file, table or location, and supporting evidence or explanation.

Report a published error

1. Register the report and confirm receipt where contact details exist.
2. Identify material, version, and related files.
3. Assess immediate risk or personal-data exposure.
4. Review source, code, tables, and records.
5. Classify the error, effect, and scope.
6. Decide and escalate where necessary.

A nonmaterial error may be corrected directly, with the page-update date changed where appropriate. Not every punctuation change requires a public notice, although operationally relevant changes remain recorded.

• Publish a notice explaining what changed and why.
• Update every affected format and language.
• Change version number or update date.
• Preserve the earlier version or state that it was superseded.
• Assess effects on summaries, media material, and datasets.
• Notify known clients or users where the effect is significant.

A revision is used where data, methodology, analysis, or interpretation change substantially. The new version has a number, date, and change log and explains whether earlier findings remain wholly or partly valid.

Material may be withdrawn where error or failure prevents reliance, personal information was exposed, publication rights were absent, manipulation or plagiarism is established, or publication creates unacceptable risk. A withdrawal notice and reference may remain rather than deleting every trace.

• Material title and date.
• Withdrawal date.
• Clear general reason where lawful and safe.
• Replacement material, where available.
• Instruction not to rely on the withdrawn item.

• Release a new data and codebook version.
• Identify affected variables, records, or weights.
• Update file hash or identifier.
• Inform restricted users where possible.
• Explain whether analysis should be repeated.
• Do not silently replace the file.

Review whether the issue affects Arabic, English, PDF, HTML, tables, charts, or data. Correcting one format does not establish that every format was corrected.

• Editor or researcher registers the issue.
• Analyst verifies data and code.
• Study lead assesses scientific effect.
• Privacy lead reviews exposure incidents.
• Authorized person approves correction or withdrawal.
• Technical team updates links, files, and indexing.

Honest error reporting is not treated as misconduct or personal failure. Concern for reputation must not prevent staff or users from raising a genuine problem.

A page may show publication date, latest update, version, and correction or withdrawal notice. The Center maintains a more detailed internal record of decisions, reasons, approvals, and affected files.

An author, staff member, client, participant, reader, or external organization may report a concern. Technical language or proof is not required at submission; identifying the material, location, and reason for review is sufficient.

Where a material error is suspected, relevant versions, data, code, and correspondence are preserved under restricted access. Source files are not altered before documentation, and change records must not be deleted to conceal the error or responsibility.

• Material title, link, and version.
• Correction date.
• What was incorrect.
• What changed.
• Effect on findings, or statement of no material effect.
• Link to the new version or replacement file.
• Whether other data, graphics, or analyses require update.

An update adds new data or context to material that was correct when published; a correction addresses an error in the prior version. “Update” should not conceal an error, and a minor editorial change should not be described as a material correction.

A commissioner may request review of an error, confidentiality issue, or contractual right, but cannot redefine an inconvenient finding as an error. Requests are assessed against evidence, methodology, and agreement, and the decision is recorded.

Where a dataset changes, a new version number identifies affected cases, variables, values, and reanalysis rules. A file is not silently replaced, and a record allows users to identify the version they used.

• Update linked tables, charts, and summaries.
• Notify recipients of the prior version where the effect is material and notification is feasible.
• Revise citations and metadata.
• Review articles or presentations based on the finding.
• State whether a recommendation remains valid.

Material may be suspended during investigation where risk of harm or misinformation is high. A notice states that the material is under review without prejudging the outcome, followed by republication, correction, or withdrawal.

A withdrawal page normally remains available to explain that the material should no longer be relied upon, with a general reason, date, and replacement link where applicable. Complete deletion can leave external copies without context.

The author or affected organization may request review and provide new evidence. Review should involve a person or body other than the initial decision-maker where possible, and appeal does not automatically restore the material.

Action does not end with file correction. The cause is reviewed to determine whether templates, training, checks, access, or responsibilities must change, with follow-up on implementation.