Publication Dates, Corrections and Updated Research Records
A paper can carry several dates
Research records may show submission, acceptance, first online publication and journal issue dates. These dates describe different events. The year displayed in a citation may not tell you when readers first had access to the findings or when the underlying work was conducted.
For a peptide literature timeline, record the date relevant to the question. If asking when evidence became public, first online availability matters. If asking what a review could have included, compare the study’s availability with the review’s search date rather than relying only on matching publication years.
Check the publisher record
Open the current article landing page before relying on a downloaded copy. Look for correction, expression-of-concern or retraction notices and follow any links to them. An old PDF saved in a local folder may remain unchanged even when the publisher has updated the article record.
The ICMJE: Corrections and Version Control describes how journals should make corrections and identify newer versions. A correction notice is information to read, not merely a warning label. Its effect depends on what changed: a misspelled affiliation, a numerical table entry and an altered interpretation have very different consequences.
Work out whether the claim changed
Compare the notice with the exact result being summarised. A hypothetical peptide paper could correct a figure legend without changing the measurements, or correct an analysis that changes the estimated effect. The consequence for a reading note follows the substance of the amendment.
A manuscript may also exist in preprint and journal forms. The ICMJE: Overlapping Publications discusses connections between preprints and later publications. Check that the correction relates to the version you are reading and avoid mixing a figure from one version with a conclusion from another without explaining the difference.
Maintain a short version trail
A practical record contains the article identifier, version consulted, access date, notice checked and any relevant amendment. Keep the original observation separate from the corrected interpretation. This allows a later reader to understand why an earlier summary changed without having to reconstruct the entire search.
When using our research resources, revisit foundational papers as well as recent ones before producing a new synthesis. Recency alone does not establish reliability, and age alone does not invalidate a result. The useful question is whether the cited record remains current and whether subsequent information changes the particular claim being made.
Related research reading
Explore the research blog and original batch-document library for further context.