10 June 2014
Problem: You've just read a monograph or an online publication by a well-respected author. Amid a discussion of an event, situation, or social perspective, the author has grievously erred, in your opinion. You know that more casual "researchers" will accept the expert's published assertion as fact. You feel a correction is needed. How would you approach the problem?
The basic question to answer is this: To whom, exactly, would the correction matter?
That said, there's another issue to consider: Corrections of conclusions reached by well-established academics carry more weight when they appear in peer-reviewed journals, rather than simply posted at our personal website or published in a local periodical that will accept anything submitted.
To ensure that our correction reaches the audience that actually needs it—and that it will carry some credibility—we should ask a series of more-specific questions:
- How historically significant is the person who is the subject of the error? Is the error or the person of sufficient significance to justify (in an editor's mind) allotting page space for a new article?
- How much new information do I have on this person?
- Does my work represent a significant amount of original research? Is it also solidly grounded in historical context as well as the other literature existing on the subject?
- What journals or historical magazines treat that subject matter?
- What is the target audience of each of these publications? Which one best fits my situation?
- How should I craft my presentation of the evidence to fit the needs and style of the periodical that I am targeting?
First—and always: We should contact the author with whom we disagree. We discuss the issue tactfully and helpfully. We give that author a chance to reconsider what he or she has published. Several outcomes are then possible:
- The author might be planning a revision, in which a correction based on our information would be duly credited to us.
- If the error was published in a journal that is archived online, the solution might be for the author to attach an addendum to the article to call attention to the more in-depth work that we are publishing elsewhere.
- The author may have other new information relevant to the error and might suggest that the two of us collaborate on a related article.
In the end, collaboration is likely to be more valuable to both of us than an individual effort that might be perceived as one-upmanship.