Home > FAQ > How should I organize a check for corrections and errata across a reference list before submission?

How should I organize a check for corrections and errata across a reference list before submission?

October 26, 2026
reference list checkingcorrections and errataretraction screeningpre-submission manuscript reviewcitation verification log

Build a citation-by-citation sweep log that records, for each load-bearing reference, the publisher-maintained update record and any correction, erratum, or retraction with its date and its effect on the claim you cite. ICMJE advises authors to verify references against original sources, cite direct sources where possible, and identify retractions, so treat this as part of reference verification rather than a separate task.

Set up the log before you search

Create one row per load-bearing citation with these fields: citation key, DOI or article identifier, publisher update record checked (with date checked), update type (correction, erratum, retraction, or none found), update date, and effect on your claim (none, narrow, replace, or remove). A load-bearing citation is one whose finding supports a statement in your results, discussion, or conclusions; background citations that only orient the reader can be logged more briefly.

Run the sweep in order

  1. List every load-bearing citation and pull its DOI or publisher article page. Expected result: a stable identifier you can re-check later.
  2. Open the publisher-maintained update record for each item. Crossref's Crossmark documentation describes Crossmark as a way for readers to check a publisher-maintained record for updates such as corrections, retractions, and other changes to a scholarly work. Expected result: either a recorded update or a confirmed absence of one, entered in the log.
  3. For any update found, record the type and date, then read the notice to see which findings or data it affects. COPE's retraction guidance covers purposes, grounds, notices, and responsibilities for correcting the research literature through retraction and related actions, which helps you interpret what a notice is asserting. Expected result: a one-line effect note per updated citation.
  4. Revise the sentence or claim that depended on an updated source. If a correction changes a number, update the number; if a retraction removes the finding, replace the citation or delete the claim. Expected result: a revised draft where every affected claim matches its current source record.
  5. Re-check the log against the final reference list so no load-bearing citation is missing a row. Expected result: a complete sweep log you can keep with your submission records.

Decide what counts as resolved

A row is resolved when you have checked the publisher update record and either logged a specific update with its date and effect or recorded that no update was found on the date checked. If a record is ambiguous or you cannot reach the update page, mark the row unresolved and verify it through the publisher's article page or the journal's notice archive before submission. Keep the checked date in every row so a later reader can see when the status was confirmed.

What changes in the manuscript

Corrections and errata usually require editing the affected sentence, table, or figure note; retractions require removing or replacing the citation and any claim resting on it. Record each edit next to its log row so you can show which manuscript change followed from which update.

←
PreviousHow should I document a systematic review search for PRISMA reporting?
NextHow should I plan a multi-registry search so I do not miss trials for a condition?
→