Last updated: November 12, 2026
1Lecture aims to provide clear, accurate biology learning materials. When an error affects an explanation, diagram, answer, or result, our responsibility is to assess it and make an appropriate correction.
This policy applies to lessons, references, illustrations, animations, quizzes, interactive tools, and downloadable resources. It also covers factual statements about the project itself.
Reporting an Error
Readers, educators, and contributors are welcome to report a problem through 1Lecture’s published contact channel. A useful report includes:
- The page URL and the relevant heading, question, figure, or activity.
- The statement, label, answer, or behavior that appears incorrect.
- An explanation of the issue and a reliable supporting reference, where available.
- For tools, the inputs or selections used and the result displayed.
Screenshots and browser or device details may help explain a display or interaction problem. Please exclude personal or sensitive information that is unnecessary to understand the issue.
A suggested correction is helpful, but readers do not need to provide a complete replacement explanation.
Assessing Reports
Reports should be evaluated on their substance. We consider the evidence, the context of the lesson, the assumptions stated, and the effect on a learner’s understanding.
Priority should reflect the significance of the problem. An incorrect answer key, misleading mechanism, or calculation error affecting several results warrants more urgent attention than a minor formatting issue.
Assessment may involve checking the cited sources, consulting additional references, reproducing a tool result, or seeking suitable subject knowledge. A disputed claim should not be changed merely because someone requests it; the decision should follow the evidence.
We aim to address material errors promptly, while allowing enough time for reliable checking. The time needed will depend on the issue’s complexity and the availability of appropriate review.
Types of Changes
Minor edits include spelling, grammar, formatting, and other changes that do not alter scientific meaning. These may be made without a separate correction notice.
Clarifications improve wording, context, or explanation where the original material was incomplete or easy to misunderstand. A note is appropriate when the clarification materially changes how a reader should interpret the page.
Substantive corrections address errors in facts, reasoning, figures, calculations, answer keys, or other content that affects understanding. These should include a visible explanation of the change and its date.
Evidence updates reflect developments after publication, such as new findings or revised scientific interpretation. An update should distinguish a change in knowledge from an error that was present in the earlier version.
The significance of a change matters more than its size. Replacing a single unit, arrow, or answer choice can require a substantive correction.
Correction Notices and Dates
A substantive correction notice should identify the affected material, explain what was wrong, and describe the corrected interpretation. The notice should be placed where readers can reasonably connect it with the relevant content.
Publication, revision, and review dates should represent the events they describe. Routine maintenance should not make a page appear newly researched.
Internal records should retain enough information to understand significant changes and the reasoning behind them. Where appropriate, an earlier version may be retained for reference with its status made clear.
Diagrams, Quizzes, and Interactive Tools
Corrections to visual or interactive material require checking related components. A changed diagram label may affect its caption, animation, text alternative, worksheet, or quiz explanation.
When a quiz answer or scoring rule is wrong, both the key and associated feedback should be reviewed. For tools, corrected logic should be checked against verified examples before the affected functionality is restored.
A notice should describe the scope of a known issue where that information helps readers assess earlier results. We should not claim to have recalculated past attempts or notified affected users unless that action has actually occurred.
Downloaded copies do not update automatically. Where a downloadable resource contains a material error, its replacement should carry a clear revision identifier or date.
Restricting or Withdrawing Material
If an unresolved problem makes content substantially unreliable, we may restrict an activity or withdraw a page while it is assessed.
When practical, the affected location should explain the reason and direct readers to a suitable alternative. Replacement content should receive the checks appropriate to the problem identified.
A withdrawn or disputed source should also trigger assessment of the claims that depended on it.
Follow-Up and Independence
Where a reply is possible, we may request further details or explain the outcome. Readers who believe an issue remains unresolved are welcome to provide additional evidence.
Commercial relationships, reputational concerns, or the identity of the person reporting an error must not prevent a necessary correction. Public acknowledgment of an individual’s contribution should be made with their permission.
Correcting a problem is part of maintaining a useful educational resource. Feedback that improves scientific accuracy, accessibility, or clarity is welcome.
Background Reference
ICMJE — Corrections and Version Control provides relevant background on transparent correction practices. This page sets out 1Lecture’s approach to its own educational materials.