OXPOLLS TRUST CENTRE
Accuracy is a continuing responsibility. Oxpolls reviews material before publication, but a source can change, a detail can be misunderstood or an error can survive editing. Readers, sources and subject experts are encouraged to report specific factual concerns. The goal of this policy is to make that process fair, efficient and transparent.
A correction is different from a disagreement with an opinion, a request to remove accurate public-interest information or a demand to change coverage for promotional reasons. Every message is considered in context, but evidence and reader impact determine the response.
How to submit a correction
Use the Contact page and identify the article title or exact URL, the statement believed to be wrong, the reason it is inaccurate and any reliable evidence that supports the correction. A precise message can be assessed much faster than a general statement that an entire article is “wrong”. Do not send passwords, identity documents or unrelated personal information.
If the concern involves privacy, safety or a legal restriction, explain that clearly without publishing sensitive information in the message. The editorial desk may request clarification or a source. Submission does not guarantee the requested wording or removal, but it ensures the issue enters the review process.
Initial assessment and priority
The desk first checks whether the report concerns a verifiable fact, a changing fact, a quotation, an interpretation, an opinion or a technical presentation issue. Potential harm affects priority. Errors involving health, safety, identity, legal status, significant money, security or a substantially misleading headline should be reviewed more urgently than a minor spelling problem.
Editors examine the published wording, available notes, linked sources and the evidence supplied by the reader. The original author may be consulted, but the author does not have sole authority over the outcome. When necessary, Oxpolls may contact a relevant organisation or independent specialist while avoiding unnecessary disclosure of the reporting reader's personal information.
Types of changes
A minor correction fixes a spelling, formatting, broken link or detail that does not change the central understanding. A substantive correction changes a meaningful fact, calculation, attribution or conclusion. A clarification adds context when the original wording was technically accurate but likely to create a wrong impression. An update adds new information that became available after publication.
Retraction is reserved for exceptional cases where the central article is unreliable, cannot be responsibly repaired or should not remain available because of a serious ethical or legal reason. The preference is to preserve a transparent public record when possible rather than silently remove an article that has already influenced readers.
Correction notes and timestamps
When a change materially affects understanding, a note should describe what was corrected and why in concise language. The note does not need to repeat harmful private information or every step of an internal review. Minor typographical fixes may be made without a formal note when they do not alter meaning.
An “updated” date should correspond to meaningful review or new information. It should not be changed only to make an old article appear fresh in search results. Publication and modification dates are signals for readers, so they must represent real editorial activity.
Disagreements, fairness and requests for removal
A person or organisation criticised in an article may provide evidence and request a response. Oxpolls will assess relevant factual material fairly, but it will not promise favourable coverage, remove supported criticism or rewrite an opinion simply because the subject dislikes it. Corrections address accuracy and material fairness, not reputation management without evidence.
Removal requests involving personal data, copyright, safety, court orders or another legal basis receive case-specific review. The publication considers public interest, accuracy, proportionality, applicable law and whether a narrower change can solve the problem. Nothing in this policy prevents a person from using an appropriate lawful complaint or remedy.
Learning from errors and contacting the desk
Repeated or significant errors should lead to a process review. Editors may update source checklists, improve author guidance, add specialist review or change how fast-moving facts are monitored. The point of a correction system is not merely to repair one sentence; it is to reduce the chance that the same weakness appears again.
Readers can use the Contact page to send a correction request. Include a working reply address if a response is requested, but understand that volume and verification needs can affect timing. Oxpolls will not ask for a password, one-time code or payment to review a correction. Good-faith feedback is welcome and contributes directly to a more reliable publication.
Last reviewed: July 2026. For questions about this page, use the Oxpolls Contact page.