Corrections log

Editorial corrections on homeopathy.software are filed in public, dated, and kept readable after the underlying article has been revised [1]. A practitioner who cited a remedy page in a case note three weeks ago should be able to return to this page, find the entry, and see exactly what changed and why. The policy below adapts the published corrections conventions of the ICMJE biomedical-journal recommendations [2] and the standing corrections sections maintained by The New York Times [3] and the BBC editorial guidelines [4] to a small professional editorial site [1].

Why a public corrections log

Health-and-medicine publications occupy a category in which silent edits are a trust failure, not a copy convenience. The ICMJE explicitly asks publishers to make the historical record auditable rather than mutable, and to keep the original article available alongside any correction or retraction notice [2]. The Trust Project's transparency indicators list a visible corrections policy as a baseline signal that a publisher can be relied on [5]. A homeopathy editorial site that updates a remedy summary without a notice is asking practitioners to trust an invisible edit; this page exists so that no edit is invisible.

The log covers every article on the site, every author biography under /team/, every methodology page, and every standing position under /about/. It does not log routine copy-edits — typo fixes, broken-link patches, image-alt repairs — because those bump the page's date_updated only when the change has substantive effect on meaning, in line with the two-dates discipline this site shares with major news desks [3][4]. The full list of primary sources the site draws on is maintained at our source list.

The four categories of correction

Each log entry uses a four-tier taxonomy taken from the Times corrections desk and the BBC accuracy guidelines and adapted for a clinical-information site [3][4]. One tier per entry; no entry is filed under more than one.

Strikethroughs stay in the article body so prior phrasing remains visible to readers who linked to the page before the edit, a convention the Times corrections section preserves at the foot of revised pieces [3]. Retractions leave the URL resolvable so external links do not 404; the page renders the original text under a retraction banner and links to a successor article where one exists.

Cadence and discovery

The editorial board reviews the corrections queue weekly. Practitioners who spot an error can email the address on the editorial process page; every submission receives a written reply within five working days, whether or not the correction is accepted. The log is paginated by year and exposes an Atom feed at /about/corrections-log/feed.xml, so readers can watch corrections from an RSS reader rather than re-visiting the page. A monthly index of the past month's entries is appended to the bottom of the page; older entries remain in place by date.

For practitioners running cases with software, the underlying repertory data matters as much as the editorial copy. Similia Pro publishes a separate, version-pinned data-changes log for its repertory and materia-medica corpus, so a case decided on the 2026-04 data snapshot can be re-run later against the same data the prescription was based on. Practitioners auditing their own case decisions can Try Similia Pro free and read the software's data-changes view alongside this editorial log.

What this page is not

It is not a forum, a feedback queue, or a contact form — it is a structured public record. Comments are closed across the site in Phase 1, and corrections submitted by email are routed to the editorial board rather than to the original author, so reviewers can act independently of the byline. The submission address is on the contact page. Submissions that contest a clinical claim are weighted against the same sourcing standards used elsewhere on the site; an unsourced disagreement does not displace a well-sourced claim, but an under-cited claim that a reader can correct with a canonical or primary source will be revised on the next weekly review.

References

[1] homeopathy.software editorial board (2026) Editorial process and corrections policy, https://homeopathy.software/about/editorial-process/.

[2] International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2024) Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals, sections on corrections, retractions, and version control, https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/.

[3] The New York Times (2024) Corrections — Section archive, NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/section/corrections.

[4] BBC (2023) Editorial Guidelines, Section 3: Accuracy, https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/accuracy.

[5] The Trust Project (2024) The 8 Trust Indicators, indicator on corrections and transparency, https://www.thetrustproject.org/indicators/.