Last Updated: September 2026
At THE UNFOLDED SHELF, we believe that trustworthy publishing does not mean pretending to be perfect.
It means being transparent when something is wrong, open to credible evidence, and willing to correct the record.
Our publication covers science, history, mind-psychology, space, nature, technology, beliefs and mythology, traditions and unexplained phenomena. In many of these fields, information can change, evidence can be incomplete, and researchers can disagree.
That is why corrections are not an embarrassment.
They are part of responsible journalism.
If the evidence proves us wrong, the evidence wins.
1. Our Commitment to Accuracy
THE UNFOLDED SHELF makes reasonable efforts to ensure that published information is accurate, appropriately sourced and presented in proper context.
Before publication, we aim to verify important factual claims using reliable sources appropriate to the subject.
These may include:
- Government documents and official records
- Scientific and academic research
- Peer-reviewed papers
- Universities and research institutions
- Museums, archives and archaeological institutions
- National and international organizations
- Original datasets and reports
- Historical records
- Reputable publications
- Primary-source material
However, research-based publishing is not infallible.
If we discover that an article contains a factual error, we will assess the evidence and make an appropriate correction where necessary.
2. What Counts as a Correction?
A correction may be made when a published article contains a verifiable factual error that could materially affect a reader’s understanding.
Examples include an incorrect:
- Name
- Date
- Location
- Number or statistic
- Scientific finding
- Historical fact
- Research conclusion
- Quotation
- Attribution
- Government policy detail
- Description of an event
- Identification of an object, place or person
A correction may also be appropriate when wording creates a materially misleading factual impression.
3. Correction vs. Difference of Opinion
Not every disagreement is an error.
THE UNFOLDED SHELF covers subjects where reasonable disagreement can exist.
For example, a reader may disagree with:
- A historical interpretation
- A scientific hypothesis
- An analysis
- A prediction
- A philosophical argument
- An explanation of competing theories
That does not automatically mean the article is factually incorrect.
We distinguish between:
“This information is factually wrong.”
and
“I interpret the available evidence differently.”
Both deserve consideration, but they require different editorial responses.
Where evidence genuinely supports competing interpretations, we may update an article to provide additional context rather than declaring one side automatically correct.
4. How to Report an Error
If you believe an article contains an error, please contact us:
Email:
theunfoldedshelf@theunfoldedshelf.com
Suggested subject line:
Correction Request — [Article Title]
Please include:
- Article title
- Article URL
- The specific statement in question
- Why you believe it is incorrect
- Reliable evidence supporting your correction
- A link to the original or authoritative source, where available
For example, instead of simply writing:
“This article is wrong.”
a much more useful correction would be:
“The article states that X occurred in 1986. The official record published by Y gives the date as 1987. Here is the original source.”
That gives us something we can actually investigate.
5. How We Investigate Correction Requests
A correction request does not automatically result in an amendment.
We first evaluate the evidence.
Depending on the subject, we may:
- Recheck the original source
- Examine primary documents
- Review academic research
- Compare multiple independent sources
- Check official records
- Examine publication dates
- Review newer evidence
- Investigate whether a source has subsequently been corrected or retracted
- Consult authoritative institutional material
- Examine whether the disputed statement was fact, interpretation or speculation
The complexity of the subject determines how extensive the review needs to be.
6. Our Source Hierarchy
When investigating a factual dispute, we generally give greater weight to primary and authoritative evidence.
Our preferred order will often be:
Primary Sources
Original research papers, official records, datasets, archival documents, direct statements and other original material.
Authoritative Institutions
Government agencies, universities, museums, research institutions, scientific organizations and recognized international bodies.
Reputable Secondary Sources
Established publications and specialist reporting that accurately interpret original evidence.
Expert Commentary
Qualified specialists who provide interpretation or context.
General Websites
Useful for identifying leads, but not automatically considered authoritative.
Social Media
Social-media posts can sometimes provide leads, eyewitness material or evidence of public reaction, but virality is not evidence of accuracy.
7. Types of Editorial Corrections
Not every change to an article represents the same thing.
We generally distinguish between the following.
A. Correction
A verified factual error is corrected.
Example: An article gives the wrong year for a historical event.
B. Clarification
The underlying information is substantially correct, but the wording could mislead readers.
Example: A scientific finding is technically accurate but was phrased in a way that could make readers believe the researchers proved something they did not actually establish.
C. Update
The information was accurate when published but has subsequently changed.
This can occur with:
- Scientific research
- Technology
- Government policy
- Statistics
- Space missions
- Environmental developments
- Economic information
An update does not necessarily mean the original article was wrong.
Sometimes the world simply changed.
D. Editorial Revision
We may add additional evidence, context, explanation or analysis to improve an article without correcting a factual error.
E. Retraction or Removal
In exceptional circumstances, an article or substantial portion of an article may be removed or withdrawn if it is found to contain serious problems such as:
- Fundamentally unreliable information
- Fabricated material
- Serious plagiarism
- Major sourcing failures
- Materially misleading claims
- Other circumstances that make continued publication inappropriate
Where appropriate, we may explain the reason for the withdrawal.
8. Minor Errors
Minor typographical or formatting problems may simply be corrected without a formal correction notice.
These can include:
- Spelling
- Grammar
- Punctuation
- Formatting
- Broken links
- Minor typographical errors
However, if a seemingly small error changes the meaning of a factual statement, we may treat it as a substantive correction.
9. Significant Corrections
When an error materially affects the meaning of an article, we may:
- Correct the original passage
- Add an editor’s note
- Publish a correction notice
- Update the article date
- Add supporting sources
- Explain what was changed
The approach will depend on the seriousness of the error.
Our goal is not to make readers hunt through an article to discover that something important changed.
10. Correction Notices
Where appropriate, a correction may be identified within the article.
For example:
Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated [brief description]. The article has been corrected to reflect [correct information]. The correction was made on [date].
The wording may vary according to the nature of the correction.
We aim to keep correction notices factual, transparent and proportionate.
11. Scientific Corrections
Science is a moving target.
A research finding may later be:
- Confirmed
- Replicated
- Challenged
- Refined
- Corrected
- Retracted
- Replaced by stronger evidence
If an important source used in an article is subsequently retracted or materially challenged, we may revisit the article.
Where appropriate, we will explain the development rather than simply pretending the earlier information never existed.
A later scientific discovery does not automatically make earlier reporting an error.
The key question is:
What did the evidence support at the time, and what does the evidence support now?
12. Historical Corrections
History is reconstructed from surviving evidence.
That evidence can include:
- Documents
- Inscriptions
- Archaeological remains
- Oral histories
- Art
- Architecture
- Material evidence
- Contemporary accounts
- Scientific analysis
- Genetic evidence
Historical interpretations can change when new evidence becomes available.
If we publish an incorrect historical fact, we will correct it.
If historians genuinely disagree about an interpretation, we may present the competing views rather than falsely suggesting that the disagreement has been settled.
13. Myth, Tradition and Folklore
THE UNFOLDED SHELF may examine myths, legends, folklore and cultural traditions from India and around the world.
We approach these subjects with respect while maintaining a clear distinction between:
What a tradition says
What historical evidence establishes
What archaeological evidence establishes
What scientific evidence establishes
A belief does not need scientific verification to be culturally meaningful.
At the same time, cultural importance does not automatically make a historical or scientific claim factually established.
If we incorrectly describe the origin, development, meaning or historical context of a tradition, we may correct the relevant information.
14. Mysteries and Unexplained Phenomena
Mystery is one of the things that makes THE UNFOLDED SHELF different.
But we will not manufacture mystery where the evidence does not support one.
If an article discusses an unexplained phenomenon, we aim to distinguish between:
What is documented
What reliable evidence actually establishes.
What is proposed
Explanations suggested by researchers, historians or other sources.
What is disputed
Claims for which credible evidence or interpretations conflict.
What remains unknown
Questions that cannot currently be answered with sufficient confidence.
If new evidence resolves part of a mystery, we may update the article.
If it does not, we are comfortable saying:
“We don’t know yet.”
15. Corrections to Statistics and Data
Statistics can become outdated, revised or misunderstood.
If we discover that we incorrectly reported a number, we will correct it.
If the original source later revises its figure, we may update our article accordingly.
Where relevant, we may identify:
- Original figure
- Revised figure
- Source
- Date
- Reason for the change
We aim to distinguish between:
Actual figures
Estimates
Projections
Preliminary findings
Forecasts
These are not interchangeable.
16. Headlines Are Also Subject to Correction
A headline can mislead even when the body of an article contains accurate information.
If a headline:
- Overstates the evidence
- Implies certainty where none exists
- Misrepresents the article
- Turns a hypothesis into a fact
- Creates a materially misleading impression
we may change it.
Our principle is simple:
The headline should never be more certain than the evidence underneath it.
17. Images and Captions
Corrections can apply to visual content as well.
We may correct:
- Incorrect captions
- Wrong dates
- Wrong locations
- Incorrect identification
- Incorrect attribution
- Misleading descriptions
- Failure to identify an illustrative image appropriately
An illustrative image should not be presented as documentary evidence of an event or phenomenon when it is not.
A convincing picture is not automatically proof.
18. AI-Assisted Editorial Work
AI-assisted tools may be used in parts of our editorial workflow, such as research organization, brainstorming, language assistance, editing or other supporting tasks.
However, AI output is not treated as an authoritative source.
AI systems can produce:
- Incorrect facts
- Invented citations
- Misleading summaries
- Outdated information
- Plausible-sounding errors
Factual claims remain subject to editorial review and verification.
If an AI-assisted workflow contributes to a material factual error, that error will be treated like any other editorial error.
Editorial responsibility remains with THE UNFOLDED SHELF.
19. Corrections and Editorial Independence
We will not change accurate information simply because it is unpopular or inconvenient.
A person, organization, company or public figure may disagree with an article.
That disagreement alone does not establish an error.
Likewise, popularity does not establish truth.
We will assess correction requests according to evidence and editorial standards rather than:
- Public pressure
- Social-media reactions
- Commercial interests
- Personal relationships
- Popularity
- Political pressure
- Requests to remove inconvenient but accurate information
Evidence—not outrage—determines a factual correction.
20. Reader Feedback
Readers are an important part of the correction process.
You may contact us with:
- Potential factual errors
- Better primary sources
- Newly published research
- Historical documents
- Alternative evidence
- Updated statistics
- Relevant expert information
- Important context we may have missed
We appreciate readers who help us improve our work.
However, submitting a correction does not guarantee that the article will be changed.
All submissions are independently evaluated.
21. Correction Timeline
We aim to review credible correction requests as promptly as reasonably possible.
Some corrections can be verified quickly.
Others may require substantial investigation, particularly where:
- Sources conflict
- Historical records are incomplete
- Scientific research is disputed
- Primary documents are difficult to access
- New research needs to be evaluated
- The issue involves interpretation rather than a straightforward fact
For this reason, we do not promise a fixed correction timeline.
Once a material error is verified, we aim to address it without unnecessary delay.
22. What Readers Can Expect From Us
Readers of THE UNFOLDED SHELF can expect us to:
Investigate credible correction requests.
Prefer primary evidence where available.
Correct verified factual errors.
Clarify misleading wording.
Update information when important developments occur.
Distinguish corrections from later developments.
Acknowledge genuine uncertainty.
Respect legitimate disagreement.
Maintain editorial independence.
Avoid pretending that we know what the evidence does not establish.
23. Contact Us About a Correction
If you believe we have published incorrect information, please contact:
Alok Bhattacharjee
THE UNFOLDED SHELF
Email:
theunfoldedshelf@theunfoldedshelf.com
Recommended subject:
Correction Request — [Article Title]
Please include the article title, relevant passage, explanation and supporting evidence.
Our Correction Promise
The internet has no shortage of people who are absolutely certain.
We would rather be accurate.
Sometimes the evidence will confirm what we published.
Sometimes it will force us to change it.
And occasionally, the most honest conclusion will remain:
“The evidence isn’t enough yet.”
That is not weakness.
That is research.
At THE UNFOLDED SHELF, our commitment is straightforward:
Question more. Verify carefully. Correct openly. Follow the evidence.
Because a publication should not be judged by whether it never makes a mistake.
It should be judged by what it does when it discovers one.
THE UNFOLDED SHELF
- Science → Explain the Strange
- History → Recover the Forgotten
- Mind – Psychology → Reveal the Hidden
- Space → Explore the Unknown
- Nature → Uncover the Extraordinary
- Technology → Examine What Comes Next
- Belief & The Unexplained-Myth → Separate Belief From Evidence
- Now Unfolding→ Understand what is happening now.
Question more. Look closer. Unfold the evidence.
© 2026 THE UNFOLDED SHELF. All rights reserved.
