Corrections Policy

Why We Correct

Accuracy is the foundation of everything UK JournoHub does. We exist to help UK journalists navigate complex, often legally sensitive professional territory. A mistake in our guidance about, say, contempt law or FOI deadlines could genuinely affect someone’s work. That is why we take errors seriously and correct them as quickly and visibly as circumstances require.

Our approach to corrections is informed by the standards set by the NUJ Code of Conduct and the IPSO Editors’ Code of Practice, both of which require prompt and prominent corrections. We are not a regulated publication under IPSO, but we hold ourselves to the same spirit of transparency.

We also believe that publishing a clear corrections process — and following it — is itself part of building the trust that a resource like this depends on.

How to Report an Error

If you think we’ve made a mistake — factual, legal, typographical, or structural — please tell us. We prefer to know.

How to reach us

Email: hello@ukjournohub.com with the subject line “Correction request”
Contact form: ukjournohub.com/contact

What to include

›The URL of the page containing the alleged error (e.g. https://www.ukjournohub.com/legal/defamation)
›A description of the specific error, including the text you believe is wrong
›What you believe the correct information to be, and a source or link supporting your view if you have one
›Your name and contact email (so we can follow up if needed — we do not publish names of reporters without consent)

Severity Tiers

Not all errors are equal. Our corrections process has four tiers, each with a defined response:

Tier 1

Typographical or formatting error

Response: Fixed silently in the next content update. No correction notice is added. Examples: misspelled word, broken link, incorrect heading level, formatting glitch.

Tier 2

Minor factual error

Response: Fixed promptly. A brief footnote or inline note is added: e.g. "Corrected [date]: this figure was previously stated as X; it is Y." The "Last reviewed" date is updated. Examples: wrong year on a statute, transposed figures in a rate guide, stale link to a regulator's page.

Tier 3

Substantive factual error

Response: Fixed promptly. A clearly visible "Updated [DD Month YYYY]" notice is added at the top of the affected section, with an explanation of what was corrected and why. The correction is noted in the page's editorial history. Examples: misstatement of a statutory defence, incorrect description of an IPSO clause, wrong court jurisdiction.

Tier 4

Significant misrepresentation

Response: A prominent correction notice is displayed at the top of the page and in the affected section. The notice describes what was originally stated, why it was wrong, and what the correct position is. We may also consider whether a retraction is appropriate. Examples: a guide that materially misrepresented a legal defence, content that incorrectly attributed a code provision to the wrong body.

Visible Correction Notation

For Tier 2, 3, and 4 corrections, we use a consistent notation format so readers can identify what has changed and when. The notation always includes:

›The date the correction was made (day, month, year in full)
›What the text previously said (for Tier 3 and 4)
›What it now says
›A brief explanation of why the change was made

Corrections are not hidden in page footers or metadata. They appear in the body of the page, near the corrected content.

Right of Reply

UK JournoHub is a reference and guidance platform, not an investigative publication. We do not ordinarily publish content about named third parties that could engage a right of reply. However, where our content touches on specific organisations, regulators, or individuals, we welcome rebuttals and corrections.

Where a rebuttal is submitted to us:

›We will read and consider it carefully, regardless of whether we ultimately agree with it.
›Where the rebuttal identifies a genuine factual error, we will correct the content in accordance with our tiered corrections process.
›Where the rebuttal is a matter of opinion or editorial judgment, we will note the objection and consider whether to publish a response alongside the original content.
›We publish rebuttals where editorially appropriate and where they add clarity or useful context for our readers.

Send right of reply requests to hello@ukjournohub.com with the subject line “Right of reply request.”

Retraction Policy

A retraction — the full withdrawal of a piece of content — is reserved for cases where:

›A page is so substantially wrong that correction would leave readers worse off than no page at all.
›The legal or factual basis for an entire guide has been superseded by legislation or a landmark judgment and a full rewrite is required.
›We become aware that content was produced using fabricated or unverifiable sources (for example, as a result of AI hallucination that evaded editorial review).

Retracted content is removed from public access. A retraction notice is published at the original URL explaining that the content has been withdrawn, when, and the reason. We do not silently delete content that was publicly accessible and substantive.

Speed of Response

We aim to acknowledge all correction requests within 5 working days. Where a correction is straightforward, we aim to make it within that same window. Complex corrections — such as those requiring legal review, complete page rewrites, or consultation with the original source — may take longer. We will always acknowledge receipt and keep you informed.

If you have a time-sensitive correction request (for example, if you believe content could cause immediate professional harm), please say so in your message and we will prioritise accordingly.

What We Don’t Correct

Not everything raised with us constitutes an error requiring correction. We will not make corrections in the following circumstances:

›Matters of editorial judgment: Decisions about what topics to cover, how to frame guidance, or which sources to prioritise are editorial calls, not errors. We will consider feedback on these, but they are not corrections.
›Accurate citations of statute or case law: If we have correctly quoted a statute or court judgment and someone disagrees with the legal position, that is a dispute about the law, not about our accuracy. We will note the dispute where editorially appropriate.
›Illustrative rate data: Our freelance rate guides are clearly labelled as illustrative. Individual rates vary widely. The absence of a particular figure is not an error.
›Requests to remove accurate information for commercial or reputational reasons: We assess every take-down request fairly, but accuracy of content is not a basis for removal.