Extended definition
Errata and corrigenda are editorial instruments used to correct errors in already-published articles, preserving central findings as still reliable. The predominant convention distinguishes: erratum (Latin, plural errata) refers to errors introduced by the editorial process — typesetting errors, swapped figures, incorrect page numbers, wrong affiliation attribution due to production error; corrigendum (Latin, plural corrigenda) refers to corrections of author errors — wrong calculation in a table, incorrect p-value, citation attributed to wrong source, imprecise method description. In modern editorial practice, the terms are often used interchangeably; rigorous distinction varies by journal. ICMJE Recommendations (2024 version) and the COPE flowchart offer the standard protocol. Critical distinction from retraction: errata/corrigenda preserve integrity of central findings — only specific details are corrected; retraction is appropriate when findings themselves are no longer reliable. Hosseini et al. (2018, Science and Engineering Ethics) investigated cases where retraction for honest error was appropriate and offered practical criteria. Errata and corrigenda receive their own DOI, are listed in the article’s history and in PubMed/Scopus.
When it applies
Errata applies when the error is clearly attributable to the editorial process: wrong figure due to production swap, misplaced legend, italic where regular was meant, affiliation swapped between co-authors. Corrigenda applies when the error is the authors’ but localized and does not invalidate conclusions: arithmetic error in a secondary table with a correction that does not change significance, numerical CI value reported in error without affecting interpretation, incorrect citation to another work. It applies when authors themselves identify the error and report it to the editor — responsible practice encouraged by COPE. It applies when a reader reports an identified error and editorial investigation confirms. It applies on short timelines when possible: delayed errata/corrigenda propagates citations to incorrect text.
When it does not apply
Errata/corrigenda does not apply when the error affects integral reliability of findings — in that case, retraction is the appropriate instrument. It does not apply when misconduct is suspected (fabrication, falsification, plagiarism): a specific COPE investigation flowchart applies first. It does not apply as a vehicle for general self-criticism or interpretation re-discussion: subsequent intellectual disagreement is handled by new articles, not corrections. It does not apply when changes are so extensive that they rewrite substantive parts of the article — republication as a new version is an alternative in some cases. It does not replace ICMJE-compliance: misconduct retractions require a distinct protocol, not cosmetic correction.
Applications by field
— Health and biomedical sciences: ICMJE sets the standard; PubMed automatically integrates errata into the article record; Cochrane uses corrigenda in updated systematic reviews. — Computer science and engineering: IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library mark errata in listings; conferences occasionally publish errata in subsequent proceedings. — Social sciences: APA Style guide covers errata format; journals use structure similar to health sciences. — Humanities: errata historically common in books; in journals, lower frequency but same editorial structure.
Common pitfalls
The first pitfall is not publishing errata/corrigenda when an error is detected: omission corrupts the quality of the work — responsible authors and serious journals acknowledge, not hide. The second is confusing with retraction: errata preserves reliability; retraction removes. Choosing between the two requires substantive assessment of error impact. The third is resisting publication of self-correcting due to perception of career harm: literature shows (Hosseini et al. 2018) that honest correction has positive long-term reputational effects. The fourth is failing to cross corrections with preprint-deposited versions (arXiv, bioRxiv): preprints must be updated in parallel. The fifth is confusing errata with editorial notes or commentary: errata are factual corrections; commentary is intellectual debate — distinct instruments with distinct functions.