How Authors React to Editorial Prompts About Corrections to Cited Literature: A Cross‐Sectional Study

ABSTRACT The current methods of amending scholarly literature are inadequate; correction notices are often issued indiscriminately, irrespective of the magnitude of the related error. In this cross‐sectional study, we investigated how authors of articles accepted at the Journal of Global Health between 2021 and 2023 perceive the impact of errata to the references in their articles. The authors found most ( n = 228, 99.1%) of the 230 errata in our sample to have no impact on the statements within their articles, which fully agreed with our own assessment of their content (Fleiss' κ = 1). Only two published errata led the authors to change their references or the content of their article. Furthermore, 197 errata (85.7%) did not clearly indicate who initiated the amendment, while 156 (67.8%) did not disclose who was responsible for the underlying error. These findings do not mean that minor amendments are irrelevant; rather, they point to a need for more nuanced taxonomies that would reflect the severity of the error being corrected, while still logging it transparently and publicly. Such a system would allow stakeholders to prioritise corrections that materially impact the knowledge base, while maintaining the integrity and trustworthiness of the scholarly record by making all post‐publication changes visible.