The Fascinating Dentistry corrections log records every material factual correction issued to a published article. Each entry carries a date, the original article URL, the original claim, the corrected claim, the source used to verify the change, the named reviewer, and a status marker. This page follows the correction notice format described by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations. Our research methodology page describes how articles are produced, sourced, and clinically reviewed before publication. This page describes how articles are corrected after publication, and how readers can verify that no factual claim has been changed without a public record.
How should readers interpret this corrections log?
A corrections log entry has seven fixed fields: date, article URL, original claim, corrected claim, verifying source, reviewer name, and correction status. The table below defines each field a reader will encounter when a correction is issued.
| Field | Definition |
|---|---|
| Date | Date the correction was published, in DD/MM/YYYY format |
| Article URL | Permanent link to the corrected article |
| Original claim | The exact text as first published |
| Corrected claim | The exact text as it now reads |
| Verifying source | Peer-reviewed paper, regulator publication, or named clinical guideline that supports the change |
| Reviewer | Named AHPRA-registered dentist who approved the correction |
| Status | Issued, superseded, or retracted |
A material correction appears in three places: inside the corrected article, on this log, and in the article's revision history. Silent edits are reserved for minor errors only, typographical, grammatical, or formatting issues that do not alter any factual claim. A reader can use this log to confirm that no factual change has been made without a public, dated, attributed record. Entries are listed in reverse chronological order so the most recent correction appears at the top of the relevant year section.
Which corrections appear most recently?
No corrections issued to date. Fascinating Dentistry launched with a single-cycle review process in which every article passes through a clinical reviewer, a citation check, and an editorial pass before publication. The absence of logged corrections reflects that pre-publication scrutiny, not an absence of oversight. When the first correction is required, the most recent three to five entries will appear in this section in reverse chronological order, with the newest entry at the top. Each recent entry will repeat the full seven-field structure defined above so a reader can compare the original and corrected claims side by side.
A correction is triggered by one of four events: a reader report submitted through the process described later on this page, a reviewer-initiated audit of a previously published article, a new peer-reviewed study that contradicts a cited claim, or an updated clinical guideline from the Australian Dental Association, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, or AHPRA. Each trigger carries equal weight; the source of the report does not change the standard of evidence required to issue a correction.
What corrections have been issued in 2026?
No corrections issued in 2026. The table below shows the schema every 2026 entry will use when a correction is required.
| Date | Article | Original Claim | Corrected Claim | Source | Reviewer | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| , | , | , | , | , | , | No corrections issued in 2026 |
A correction will be added to this table the same day a material error is confirmed. The reviewer named in the entry will match a clinician listed on our medical reviewers page. The verifying source will be either a peer-reviewed journal article, an Australian regulator publication, or a named university research output with a publication date and DOI where available. No anecdote, manufacturer claim, marketing material, or social media post is accepted as a verifying source for a correction. If a manufacturer-sourced figure is later contradicted by independent peer-reviewed evidence, the correction is issued against the original article even when the article accurately reported the manufacturer's claim at the time.
What corrections have been issued in 2025?
No corrections issued in 2025. The site was not yet active in 2025, so no articles existed to require correction. The table below preserves the year for archival continuity.
| Date | Article | Original Claim | Corrected Claim | Source | Reviewer | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| , | , | , | , | , | , | Site not yet active in 2025 |
Entries from earlier years will be added to this section if any archived content is migrated into the current publication. Each migrated correction will retain its original publication date, original claim text, original reviewer name, and original verifying source. No migrated correction is re-dated to the migration date; the original correction date is preserved so the editorial record remains accurate.
How does a reader report a content error?
A reader reports a content error in four steps. First, identify the exact sentence or claim that appears incorrect, including the article URL and the heading under which the claim appears. Second, note the source that contradicts the claim, a peer-reviewed paper, a regulator guideline, or a named clinical textbook. Third, send the report through the contact form with the subject line "Content correction report". Fourth, retain the acknowledgement email you receive.
The timeline for every report is fixed and non-negotiable. Acknowledgement is sent within five business days of receipt. Investigation is completed within 14 days of acknowledgement. A public correction is published within 30 days of acknowledgement if the error is confirmed as material. If the investigating reviewer disagrees with the report, a written explanation is sent to the reporter and the report is logged as "reviewed, no correction". Reports that cannot be verified against a primary source are returned to the reporter with a request for the supporting citation. Anonymous reports are accepted and investigated on the same timeline, though a return email is not possible without contact details.
A useful report contains four elements: the article URL, the quoted original claim, the contradicting source with citation, and the reporter's contact email. Reports missing the contradicting source take longer to investigate because the reviewer must locate the supporting evidence independently.
What correction standards does Fascinating Dentistry apply?
A material error is any factual claim that could affect a reader's health, treatment choice, or financial decision. Examples include an incorrect dosage, a wrong cost range, an outdated clinical guideline, a misattributed statistic, or a treatment indication that no longer matches current evidence. A minor error is a typographical, grammatical, or formatting issue that does not change the meaning of any claim. Material errors are always corrected with a public notice, date, reviewer, and corrected claim, added both to the article and to this log. Minor errors are corrected silently in the article text.
These standards match the correction notice requirements in our editorial policy and the reviewer responsibilities held by our medical reviewers. The policy defines three correction tiers. A minor edit is silent and applies to typos, grammar, and formatting only. A material correction is public, dated, attributed, and logged on this page; the corrected article carries an inline notice linking back to the relevant log entry. A retraction is reserved for claims where the underlying evidence has been retracted, withdrawn, or formally contradicted by the original publishing journal; the article is removed, a replacement is published, and both actions are noted on this log with the original and new article URLs. The three-tier structure follows the COPE correction and retraction guidelines and the ICMJE Recommendations on correcting the scientific record.
Frequently Asked Questions About Corrections
What happens if I report an error?
We acknowledge your report within 5 business days, investigate within 14 days, and publish a public correction within 30 days if the error is material. The correction is logged on this page with the date, article URL, original claim, corrected claim, and reviewer name.
What is a "material" error?
A material error is any factual claim that could affect a reader's health, treatment choice, or financial decision. Examples include incorrect dosage, wrong cost range, outdated clinical guideline, or misattributed statistic. Material errors are always publicly corrected.
Do you correct errors that don't affect health decisions?
Minor errors such as typos or grammar are corrected silently in the article. Material errors, anything that could mislead a reader about dental care, costs, or treatment options, are corrected with a public notice logged on this page.
Can I see old corrections?
Yes. All corrections are permanently logged on this page, organised by year. Correction entries are never removed; they remain visible as part of the editorial transparency record maintained since launch.