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.