Handling external concerns about an ANR publication

Accuracy in ANR publications is a primary goal. If a UC ANR specialist, advisor or staff person receives a comment or complaint about inaccuracy or other issues in an ANR peer-reviewed publication, we should not hesitate to look into the issue. The following steps have been approved by the Communications Advisory Board to respond to a reader's concern in a way that parallels the ANR peer review process and respects the ANR author.

The ANR individual receiving the comment or compliant asks that it be put in writing.
The ANR individual forwards the comment/compliant to Communication Services (CSIT).
CSIT acknowledges the commenter to say we will look into it.
CSIT contacts the publication’s author. The process is then similar to a query raised in peer review; the author is asked to respond in writing.
a. Author could oppose the comment/complaint and must explain why
b. Author could agree that concerns could be valid
CSIT sends the author’s response to the appropriate ANR associate editor (AE). If the author opposes the concern raised, the AE has the option to get a second opinion by an internal or other academic expert in the subject matter or commodity expert competent to address the specific issue.
If author agrees with the comment, he/she and the AE decide how to correct the material; another review that focuses on the specific issue only may be helpful; the author could suggest such a reviewer.
The decision and corrected text is returned to CSIT.
An electronic publication is correction online
A printed book may need an errata page inserted if correction warrants
CSIT replies to the original commenter and the ANR individual who brought the issue forward.