Corrections policy

Genese welcomes precise reports about factual errors, broken links, unclear wording and outdated context. This policy is effective 5 October 2026 and supports a transparent editorial record for every article published on this site.

1. 1. What to report

   Tell us the page title, passage, date and reason for concern. A reliable source or first-hand context helps us investigate efficiently, and a direct link to the paragraph in question speeds up the review considerably. For example, a reader who notices that a stated heart-rate range is inconsistent with the source cited in the article should quote the exact sentence rather than summarising the page from memory, since paraphrased reports are harder to match to the original text. Screenshots are welcome but should be accompanied by the page URL, because a screenshot alone does not tell us which revision of the article was viewed. If the concern involves a number, unit or date, please state what you believe the correct value should be and where that value comes from, as this lets the reviewing editor compare sources directly instead of starting the search from nothing. Reports that bundle several unrelated concerns into one message are still accepted, but we ask that each point be numbered separately so that the desk can track and resolve them individually rather than closing the whole report once only one issue has been addressed.

   • a. Include the exact page title and, where possible, the section heading nearest the passage in question.
   • b. Quote the specific sentence rather than paraphrasing it, to avoid ambiguity during review.
   • c. Where a date or figure is involved, state the value you believe is correct and the basis for that value.

2. 2. What is not a correction

   Disagreement with a cautious conclusion is not automatically an error. We may update an explanation without adopting every suggested interpretation, particularly where the original wording already reflects a recognised range of views. A request that simply restates a different opinion on a genuinely open question, such as the ideal number of weekly conditioning sessions for a given reader, is logged as feedback rather than treated as a factual correction, since editorial judgement on genuinely unsettled topics is not itself an error. Where a passage already states that practice varies or that individual response differs, a report asking us to adopt one specific figure as the only correct answer will typically be declined with an explanation of why the range was retained. We distinguish between a factual claim, which can be right or wrong, and an editorial framing choice, which can be adjusted for clarity but is not inherently incorrect. When a report sits in this grey area, the reviewing editor documents the reasoning for the decision so that a follow-up enquiry can reference the same explanation rather than restarting the discussion from scratch.

   • a. Feedback on tone or emphasis is logged but is not treated as a factual error.
   • b. A request to adopt one single figure where a recognised range exists is usually declined with a written explanation.
   • c. Genuine ambiguity in scientific literature is reflected in the text rather than resolved artificially.

3. 3. Safety issues

   Flag language that could reasonably encourage unsafe exercise, unsupported treatment or delayed urgent care as a priority. These reports are reviewed ahead of routine corrections given the potential impact on a reader's wellbeing. A safety-flagged report is routed directly to the most senior available editor rather than entering the general queue, and an acknowledgement is typically sent within two business days rather than the standard seven. If a passage appears to recommend continuing a high-intensity session despite warning signs such as chest discomfort or dizziness, for instance, the relevant section is reviewed immediately and, where warranted, temporarily amended with a caution note while the full review is completed. Reports of this kind do not need to include a source, since the priority is to reduce any risk of harm first and verify the underlying research afterwards. Where a safety concern turns out to be based on a misreading of the passage rather than an actual error, we still reply explaining the reasoning, because a cautious reader raising a safety question in good faith deserves a considered response rather than a dismissive one.

   • a. Safety-related reports bypass the standard queue and are reviewed by a senior editor first.
   • b. A temporary caution note may be added to a passage while the fuller review is completed.
   • c. No supporting source is required to flag a safety concern; the priority is a prompt review.

4. 4. Review

   An editor checks the original source, surrounding paragraph and date before deciding whether wording should change, consulting the methodology page's confidence levels where relevant. The review typically involves re-reading the cited source in full rather than relying on an abstract or summary, since context that changes the meaning of a figure is often found outside the headline statistic. Where the original source has itself been updated or retracted since publication, the editor notes this and considers whether the Genese article should be revised to reflect the newer position. A second editor is asked to confirm any change that affects a numeric claim, range or safety-related statement, so that no single person's reading determines the final wording on points readers may rely on. If the review concludes that no change is warranted, the reporter still receives a short explanation of why the original wording was retained, rather than silence.

   • a. The original cited source is re-read in full, not just its summary or abstract.
   • b. Numeric or safety-related changes require confirmation from a second editor before publication.
   • c. A declined correction still receives a written explanation to the person who reported it.

5. 5. Material errors

   Meaningful factual errors are corrected in the text and may receive a dated note when readers could have acted on the mistake, particularly for numbers, ranges or comparisons. A material error is one that could reasonably change a reader's understanding or decision, such as a mismatched unit of measurement, an incorrectly attributed finding, or a comparison table where two rows were transposed. When such an error is confirmed, the article is updated as soon as practicable and a short dated note is added near the correction, typically phrased as a one-line statement rather than a lengthy explanation, so that returning readers can see at a glance that the page has been revised. Where the error appeared in more than one article, for example a shared statistic referenced across the endurance and physiology sections, each affected page is checked and corrected individually rather than assuming the fix in one location is sufficient. Material corrections are also noted internally so that the same error is not reintroduced in a future update or a related article drafted later.

   • a. A mismatched unit, incorrect attribution or transposed comparison typically qualifies as material.
   • b. A dated correction note is added near the amended passage, kept brief and factual.
   • c. Shared figures referenced across multiple articles are checked on every affected page.

6. 6. Minor edits

   Spelling, links and formatting may be fixed without a public note when the meaning remains unchanged, keeping the published record readable without cluttering it with routine housekeeping notes. A broken internal link, a duplicated word, or an inconsistent heading style are examples of changes that do not alter what the article communicates and are therefore corrected silently as part of ordinary site maintenance. The distinction between a minor edit and a material correction is applied conservatively: if there is any reasonable doubt about whether a change affects meaning, it is treated as material and logged with a dated note rather than silently adjusted. Minor edits are still recorded in an internal maintenance log, even though they are not shown publicly, so that the editorial team can review how frequently particular pages require upkeep and prioritise a fuller rewrite where a page needs more than occasional small fixes.

   • a. Typos, duplicated words and broken internal links are treated as minor and fixed without a public note.
   • b. Any doubt about whether a change affects meaning results in it being treated as material instead.
   • c. Minor fixes are still logged internally to track which pages need more substantial review.

7. 7. Response time

   We aim to acknowledge a report within seven days and complete an initial review within 30 days, with an update sent to the reporter once the review concludes. Acknowledgement means a short message confirming that the report has been received and assigned to an editor, not a final decision on the substance of the correction. Where a report requires consulting an external source that is not immediately accessible, such as a journal article behind a paywall or a reference that must be requested from a library, the 30-day window may be extended, and the reporter is told as soon as this becomes apparent rather than left waiting without explanation. Complex reports involving multiple passages across several articles are generally resolved in stages, with simpler points corrected first and more involved questions addressed in a follow-up message. If no reply is received after 30 days, a reader is welcome to send a polite follow-up referencing the original message, since reports can occasionally be delayed by routine staff absence or a high volume of enquiries.

   • a. Acknowledgement within seven days confirms receipt only, not the outcome of the review.
   • b. Reports requiring restricted or hard-to-access sources may take longer than 30 days, with notice given.
   • c. Multi-part reports may be resolved in stages rather than all at once.

8. 8. Contact data

   Correction messages are used for review and follow-up only, retained for up to 24 months under the privacy policy, after which they are deleted from active systems. During this period, a message may be referenced again if a related correction is reported on the same article, which avoids asking the same reader to resubmit information already on file. Access to correction correspondence is limited to the editors directly involved in reviewing the report, rather than shared broadly within the organisation, and messages are not used for marketing or unrelated analytical purposes. Where a correction leads to a published note, only the substance of the change is made public; the identity and contact details of the person who reported it are never disclosed without explicit permission. Backup copies of correspondence may persist for a short additional period beyond the 24-month window due to routine backup rotation, consistent with the retention schedule described in the privacy policy.

   • a. Correction correspondence is accessible only to the editors handling the specific report.
   • b. A published correction note never identifies the reporter without their explicit consent.
   • c. Backup copies may persist briefly beyond the stated retention period due to routine rotation.

9. 9. Anonymous reports

   Reports may be sent without a name, although an email address helps us ask clarifying questions and share the outcome of the review. An anonymous report that lacks any contact method is still read and, where the issue is clear and verifiable on its own, may still result in a correction, but the reporter will not receive a personal update since there is no way to reach them. We encourage including at least a reply address even if a name is withheld, because many reports describe a concern accurately but omit a detail, such as which edition or date of an article was viewed, that can only be resolved by asking a follow-up question. Anonymous reports are held to the same evidentiary standard as named ones: a claim is not corrected simply because it was reported, but because it can be verified against the original source or a comparable reference.

   • a. A reply address is optional but recommended so clarifying questions can be asked.
   • b. Anonymous reports are evaluated on the same evidentiary basis as named reports.
   • c. Without a contact method, the reporter will not receive a personal outcome notice.

10. 10. Contact

    Use the contact page or write to Jalan Kemang Raya No. 12, Mampang Prapatan, Jakarta Selatan, 12730, DKI Jakarta, Indonesia. Readers may also telephone the desk at (021) 7586-9172 during normal office hours if a correction is time-sensitive and a written report would be slower than a short call. Postal correspondence is acknowledged more slowly than a message sent through the contact form, typically within ten business days of receipt, since paper mail is processed less frequently than the online form. Whichever channel is used, including the same details described above, such as the page title and the specific passage, helps the desk route the report to the correct editor without an additional round of clarifying questions.

    • a. Phone contact is appropriate for time-sensitive reports during office hours.
    • b. Postal correspondence is acknowledged within approximately ten business days.
    • c. The same reporting details apply regardless of which contact channel is used.

11. 11. Revision log

    5 October 2026: correction workflow reviewed and aligned with the current privacy and editorial policies. This review confirmed that response-time targets, retention periods and the escalation path for safety-related reports remain consistent with the practices described on the methodology and privacy pages. Future revisions to this policy will be logged here with the date and a short description of what changed, so that a returning reader can see at a glance whether the process they relied on previously has since been updated. No substantive changes to the response-time commitments were made during this review; the update consisted of clarifying language and cross-references to related policies.