Franz-Josef-Land.info is committed to maintaining an accurate, transparent, and useful reference about Franz Josef Land.
Although we aim to verify information before publication, errors can still occur. Historical records may conflict, scientific findings can be updated, place names may be mistransliterated, measurements may be superseded, and editorial mistakes can sometimes enter published material.
When a meaningful error is identified, our policy is simple:
investigate it, correct it, and make the reference more accurate.
Corrections are part of responsible publishing, not something to avoid or conceal.
Our Commitment to Accuracy
Franz-Josef-Land.info covers subjects that often require combining evidence from very different periods and source types.
These include:
- nineteenth-century expedition narratives,
- historical maps,
- archival photographs,
- geographic surveys,
- Soviet-era publications,
- modern satellite observations,
- peer-reviewed scientific papers,
- wildlife monitoring,
- and current protected-area information.
Differences between sources are therefore inevitable.
Our goal is not to pretend that every historical or scientific question has one perfectly certain answer.
Instead, we aim to represent the available evidence accurately and revise articles when better information becomes available.
What We Consider an Error
A correction may be necessary when published material contains an inaccurate or misleading statement.
Examples include:
- an incorrect date,
- a misspelled explorer or place name,
- the wrong expedition attribution,
- an incorrect island identification,
- a faulty coordinate,
- an inaccurate numerical value,
- a misrepresented scientific finding,
- an outdated administrative statement,
- an incorrect source citation,
- a quotation attributed to the wrong person,
- or a claim that gives greater certainty than the evidence supports.
Corrections may also be appropriate when an article omits important context that substantially changes how a statement should be understood.
Minor Editorial Corrections
Small editorial issues may be corrected directly without a formal correction notice.
Examples include:
- spelling,
- punctuation,
- formatting,
- broken internal links,
- obvious typographical errors,
- minor grammatical problems,
- or formatting inconsistencies.
These changes do not normally alter the meaning of the article.
They may therefore be corrected as part of routine maintenance.
Substantive Corrections
A substantive correction affects the factual meaning or interpretation of an article.
Examples might include:
- correcting the date of an expedition,
- revising a glacier-loss figure,
- changing the identity of an island,
- correcting an explorer’s route,
- replacing an outdated protected-area rule,
- or revising a statement after discovering stronger historical evidence.
When practical, substantial corrections should be made transparently.
Depending on the importance of the change, an article may include an update or correction note explaining:
- what was previously stated,
- what has been corrected,
- and why the change was made.
Formal publishing systems commonly distinguish significant corrections from trivial typographical changes and use visible amendments when an error affects the integrity or understanding of published material. Nature Portfolio, for example, publishes correction notices for important errors and links those notices with the affected article.
Updating Is Not the Same as Correcting
Some changes do not result from an original error.
An article may have been accurate when published but later become outdated.
Examples include:
- new glacier measurements,
- revised wildlife estimates,
- newly published archaeological research,
- updated visitor regulations,
- new satellite observations,
- revised geological dating,
- or administrative changes.
In these cases, we may describe the change as an update rather than a correction.
Where relevant, the article should preserve the earlier time period so that historical data are not incorrectly rewritten as though they never existed.
For example:
A glacier-loss estimate for 1953–2015 can remain valid for that period even if newer research provides measurements through 2025.
The correct response is usually to add the newer information, not erase the older record.
Historical Sources and Corrections
Historical research presents a special challenge.
A nineteenth-century explorer may have recorded something that later proved incorrect.
That does not necessarily mean the historical quotation itself should be “corrected.”
For example, an old map may show a supposed landmass that later exploration demonstrated did not exist.
In such a case, the historically accurate statement may be:
Payer mapped or reported this feature.
The modern correction is:
later exploration showed that the feature did not exist as mapped.
Both pieces of information can remain in the article because they describe different stages of knowledge.
Our aim is to correct our interpretation of historical evidence, not rewrite the historical record.
Scientific Corrections
Scientific knowledge changes as methods improve.
A newer study may:
- increase measurement precision,
- revise an age estimate,
- identify a previously unknown species distribution,
- change estimates of glacier mass loss,
- or reinterpret older evidence.
Where stronger or more recent evidence materially changes an article, we may update the relevant section.
We consider:
- the quality of the newer research,
- whether it is peer reviewed,
- methodology,
- study area,
- measurement period,
- uncertainty,
- and whether the new study actually contradicts the earlier one.
A newer paper is not automatically better simply because it is newer.
Evidence must still be evaluated.
Citation Corrections
Source errors should also be corrected.
Examples include:
- a citation linked to the wrong publication,
- incorrect author information,
- a broken DOI,
- wrong publication year,
- attribution to a secondary source when the underlying primary source is available,
- or a citation that does not actually support the accompanying claim.
When possible, we replace weak or incorrect citations with stronger, more direct evidence.
The factual statement itself is also reviewed to ensure that it still accurately represents the corrected source.
Reader-Submitted Corrections
Readers may identify errors that were missed during editorial review.
Useful correction reports should ideally include:
- the URL or title of the article,
- the specific statement believed to be incorrect,
- the proposed correction,
- and a reliable source supporting the change.
Reports supported by primary documents, academic research, institutional records, or other authoritative evidence are especially helpful.
Receiving a correction suggestion does not automatically mean an article will be changed.
The claim will first be evaluated against the available evidence.
How We Review a Correction
When a potential substantive error is reported, we may:
- locate the statement in question,
- review the source originally used,
- examine additional primary or authoritative sources,
- determine whether the problem is factual, interpretive, or simply a difference between sources,
- revise the article if necessary,
- update citations,
- and add an explanatory correction note when appropriate.
The objective is to correct the published record rather than assign blame.
This is consistent with established publication practices that prioritize maintaining the integrity of published information and transparently notifying readers when meaningful changes are necessary.
Disputed Corrections
Not every disagreement represents an error.
Two credible historical sources may provide different dates.
Two scientific studies may produce different estimates because they use:
- different datasets,
- different time periods,
- different geographical boundaries,
- or different methodologies.
When the disagreement cannot reasonably be resolved, we may present both interpretations.
The article should explain why the figures or conclusions differ rather than falsely selecting one as unquestionably correct.
Corrections to Maps and Geographic Information
Franz Josef Land presents unusual cartographic challenges.
Historical maps contain genuine surveying errors, but modern geography can also change because of:
- glacier retreat,
- coastline exposure,
- changing ice connections,
- and improved satellite mapping.
When correcting geographical information, we distinguish between:
an old mapping error
and
a genuine physical change in the landscape.
A coastline that differs between an 1890 map and a modern satellite image does not automatically mean the earlier cartographer made a mistake.
Retraction or Removal of Content
Most errors can be corrected within the existing article.
Complete removal should be uncommon.
However, an article may be substantially withdrawn, replaced, or clearly marked when its central premise is no longer supportable.
Possible reasons include:
- extensive factual unreliability,
- fabricated sourcing,
- serious copyright problems,
- legal requirements,
- or circumstances where correction would not adequately repair the material.
Established publishing systems generally treat removal as an exceptional action and prefer maintaining a transparent record of corrections or retractions wherever possible.
Transparency Over Silent Revision
Routine proofreading does not require a correction notice.
But substantial factual changes should not be disguised as though the incorrect version never existed.
Where the difference materially affects a reader’s understanding, transparency is preferable.
A correction note may take a form such as:
Correction — 12 March 2026: An earlier version of this article gave the expedition’s arrival date as 18 June. The date has been corrected to 17 June based on the cited expedition record.
Or:
Updated — 8 September 2026: This section has been revised to incorporate a newer glacier-mass-balance study covering observations through 2022.
The wording may vary according to the situation.
No Fixed Expiration Date for Corrections
An error does not become acceptable merely because an article is old.
If a meaningful mistake is discovered months or years after publication, it can still be corrected.
Likewise, older articles may be reviewed when new research becomes available.
A reference project should improve over time.
Relationship to Our Other Policies
This Corrections Policy should be read together with our:
- Editorial Policy
- Research Standards
- Sources & Citation Policy
Those policies describe how information should be researched and published.
This page explains what happens when published material needs to change.
Our Standard
Franz Josef Land itself offers a useful lesson about corrections.
The first maps of the archipelago were groundbreaking.
They were also incomplete.
Later explorers discovered new channels.
Supposed lands disappeared.
Islands were separated.
Coordinates improved.
Aircraft provided a new perspective.
Satellites improved the map again.
The existence of corrections did not make earlier exploration worthless.
Corrections were how knowledge improved.
Franz-Josef-Land.info follows the same principle.
When better evidence shows that a date, number, map, explanation, or interpretation should change, we would rather correct the record than defend an outdated version.
The goal is not to publish material that never needs revision.
The goal is to maintain a reference that becomes more accurate, more transparent, and more useful over time.