The Economy Corrections & Complaints Policy
The Economy Corrections & Complaints Policy
Published
Revised: 3 November 2026 | Applies upon publication of this revision
The Economy is committed to accuracy, fair treatment, editorial independence and accountable research. We publish journalism, analysis, research, institutional profiles, Wiki reference material and comparative rankings. These different forms of publication call for different kinds of correction and review. A factual error in a news report, a proposed change to an organization’s Wiki profile and a challenge to a ranking methodology are not the same type of request, and they should not be decided under an indiscriminate rule.
This policy sets out how The Economy, a service operated by Gordon Institute Limited, receives, evaluates, documents and resolves editorial corrections, requests for reply, Wiki updates, complaints and ranking challenges. It also explains the evidence required, the limits of review, the relationship between editorial decisions and commercial activities, and the distinction between editorial complaints and statutory privacy rights. It supplements The Economy Ethics Code and The Economy Privacy Policy.
A formal submission opens a process for consideration; it does not establish that an error occurred, confer authority over the publication, or guarantee a particular outcome. Conversely, our independence does not excuse inaccurate reporting or a failure to examine credible evidence of a material mistake.
1. Purpose and editorial principles
We aim to maintain a reliable public record through the following principles:
- Accuracy: Verifiable factual assertions should be supported by reliable sources, taking account of the date and context of publication.
- Fairness: We assess substantial criticism and contrary evidence without granting any individual or organization a veto over legitimate reporting or evaluation.
- Proportionality: A typographical correction, a substantive clarification, a ranking-data correction and a retraction require different remedies.
- Transparency: Material changes should be indicated in a way that does not disguise the original publication or mislead subsequent readers.
- Independence: Editorial judgment and rankings are not determined by licensing purchases, sponsorship, advertising or the status of a complainant.
- Accountability: Relevant submissions, supporting materials, editorial assessment and outcomes may be preserved in a controlled internal case record.
- Confidentiality: Requests and evidence are generally handled privately, subject to necessary verification, applicable law and the public-interest requirements of journalism.
We distinguish established facts from opinion, prediction, interpretation, modelling assumptions and evaluative judgment. The existence of a legitimate dispute over interpretation does not, by itself, make an article or ranking factually inaccurate.
2. Publications and services covered
This policy applies, as relevant, to material published or editorially maintained by The Economy, including:
- News reporting, market commentary, reviews, interviews, editorial commentary, analysis and research publications.
- Institutional and organizational information in The Economy Wiki, including company, school, institutional and platform profiles.
- The Economy Rankings and their associated profiles, recognition descriptions, methodology explanations, evaluation notes and published editions.
- Corrections, notices, follow-up reports and other official editorial communications on economy.ac and relevant regional editions.
- Request channels operated through The Economy Portal at portal.economy.ac, where those channels have been enabled.
Separate services, such as independently operated forums or educational programs, may have their own complaint and assessment processes. Where an article is supplied by an external contributor or is syndicated, The Economy retains responsibility for deciding the treatment of content on its own publication; it may also consult the originating author or publisher.
3. Types of requests and how they differ
3.1 Factual correction
A factual correction concerns a verifiable error or materially misleading presentation: for example, an incorrect name, date, institutional affiliation, financial figure, quotation, source attribution, chart label or description of an event. The request should identify the specific claim and explain what independent evidence contradicts it.
3.2 Clarification or contextual update
A clarification may be appropriate when the original statement was defensible but ambiguous, insufficiently qualified or capable of causing a material misunderstanding. A subsequent development may justify an update or a new article without making the earlier statement erroneous when published.
3.3 Right of reply and editorial fairness complaint
A person or organization materially affected by a publication may request an opportunity to respond or challenge the fairness of its treatment. A reply is assessed on its relevance, factual support, proportionality and the public interest; it is not an automatic entitlement to control the article or require verbatim publication.
3.4 Wiki information update or new-page request
A Wiki request concerns an existing reference entry, such as the accuracy of an organization’s name, location, activities, foundation date, affiliations or other material profile facts, or proposes a new entry. Wiki contributions are evidence for editorial assessment, not self-service editing instructions.
3.5 Ranking review or challenge
A ranking request may concern eligibility, source data, an apparent inconsistency with the published evaluation framework, a misidentification or a material calculation or transcription error. A complaint that an organization deserves a higher place, without evidence of a specific error or material methodological inconsistency, is not by itself sufficient grounds for re-ranking.
3.6 Ethics, attribution and other editorial complaints
Concerns about plagiarism, source attribution, conflicts of interest, undisclosed sponsorship, unfair characterization or similar conduct are assessed against our editorial and research standards. Copyright, defamation, court orders, safety threats and other legal notices may require separate handling and are not limited by the ordinary editorial review process.
3.7 Personal-data rights
Requests concerning access to, rectification or erasure of personal data, objection to processing or other statutory data-protection rights should be sent to [email protected] and assessed under our Privacy Policy and applicable law. An editorial complaint does not replace a GDPR request, and an editorial assessment cannot extinguish a legal right.
4. Official submission channels
The Economy Portal is the designated framework for structured submissions and follow-up when the relevant feature is available:
- Wiki updates and corrections: portal.economy.ac/portal/wiki?tab=update.
- Ranking reviews and challenges: portal.economy.ac/portal/rankings?tab=review.
- Other editorial enquiries and service information: The Economy Portal and the relevant published editorial contact.
- Privacy and personal-data rights: [email protected].
Availability matters. A Portal page marked “Being prepared”, or stating that information is not saved or sent, is not yet accepting submissions. Do not assume that typing into such a form has delivered a complaint. Until a particular form is enabled, send the request to the applicable Corrections & Complaints contact published in the footer of economy.ac, with the subject line identifying the relevant article, Wiki entry or ranking. The general contact [email protected], listed in the previous version of this policy, may be used for routing an enquiry where no dedicated editorial contact can be reached, but privacy matters remain the primary purpose of that address.
The relevant submission route may change as the Portal develops. This policy does not represent a service as available before it is activated. The official route should not require a license purchase or newsletter subscription.
5. Who may submit and how authority is assessed
Readers, authors, sources, affected individuals, organizations and third parties with relevant evidence may report an error. An organization may designate an employee or representative to make a Wiki or ranking request. We may ask the sender to verify control of an email mailbox, their relationship to the organization or their authority to represent a third party.
A company-domain email address or an asserted title may help us verify a request, but neither automatically proves authority to speak for every affiliate, grants access to another person's case, or gives the sender editing privileges. A company’s objection does not make otherwise accurate reporting removable. Conversely, a reader who supplies independently verifiable evidence need not purchase a service or hold an official position to bring an error to our attention.
When available, an account-free Portal request may use a temporary email confirmation or secure follow-up link. Submitting a request does not automatically create an internal ERP user account or register the sender for newsletters or marketing.
6. What a complete submission should contain
For a reasonably efficient review, identify the material and the issue as precisely as possible:
- The exact published URL, title, ranking edition, profile or content identifier; for a long article, identify the relevant paragraph, quotation, table or figure.
- The statement, field, value, caption or decision that is said to be incorrect, misleading, incomplete or inconsistent.
- The specific correction, clarification or reconsideration requested, together with the reason for it.
- Primary or otherwise reliable supporting sources, including source URLs, documents, publication dates and the date to which the evidence applies.
- The submitter's contact address, organization and representative capacity where relevant, and any material conflict of interest.
- An indication if information is confidential, subject to legal restrictions or likely to expose another person's sensitive information.
Submissions need not use legal terminology. We may help classify a request according to its substance rather than its label. However, claims without identifiable evidence, bulk promotional material and requests to replace an editorial profile with marketing copy may be declined or returned for clarification.
When document uploads are enabled, provide only necessary files and avoid unnecessary personal, financial, health or confidential third-party material. Submission of a file does not by itself authorize public disclosure of everything in that file.
7. Evaluation of evidence
The editorial team weighs reliability, independence, relevance, authenticity, time period and consistency with other available information. Depending on the question, useful evidence may include official registers, contemporaneous regulatory filings, audited reports, original statements, authoritative institutional records, research publications, transcripts, source documents and verifiable data.
A company website or a statement from an interested party may be important evidence, but is not automatically conclusive on contested matters. Search-engine snippets, AI-generated summaries, unsupported screenshots, promotional claims and anonymous allegations may require additional corroboration. Evidence created after the relevant ranking cutoff or after an article was published is not automatically proof that the earlier publication was wrong.
We may compare the request with the article as published, our source record, contemporaneous documentation, an applicable ranking methodology and information received from other relevant parties. We may ask follow-up questions, consult specialist editors or researchers, and seek independent corroboration. A complainant is not entitled to the identity of confidential sources, unpublished drafts, proprietary scoring details or third-party correspondence solely because a review has been requested.
8. Intake, verification and case management
Where an enabled Portal workflow receives a submission, we may maintain a private case file containing the original request, verification records, supporting evidence, correspondence, assessment notes, proposed editorial amendments, final disposition and implementation record. Internal processing may follow these functional stages:
- Verified: a submitted request has passed the applicable email or identity checks and can be reviewed. Verification concerns access and origin; it is not an endorsement of the claim.
- Under review: relevant staff assess the claim, sources, methodology and any conflicting evidence.
- Needs information: the sender is asked for material necessary to assess or complete the request.
- Approved: an editorial or administrative action has been authorized, subject where appropriate to implementation and final quality control.
- Declined: the requested action is not supported, is outside scope or otherwise cannot be granted, with an explanation where appropriate.
- Completed: the necessary review or approved action has been recorded as finished.
A case may be reclassified, combined with related requests, paused for legal or factual verification, or returned for new information. If a confirmation or follow-up link expires, the sender may need to request a new link or re-verify an email address. The existence of a case reference does not constitute acceptance of a proposed correction, ranking change or organization-ownership claim.
9. Acknowledgement, priority and reasonable time
For enabled channels, we aim to acknowledge a successfully submitted and verified request through the confirmation or correspondence mechanism available for that channel. We do not publish a universal fixed resolution deadline: the review of a simple typographical mistake is materially different from an evidence-intensive ranking challenge or a complaint requiring multiple sources and legal assessment.
Priority is informed by seriousness, the apparent strength of the evidence, potential ongoing harm, public significance and the need to protect the integrity of a live publication. Credible reports of a serious factual error, mistaken identity, disclosure of highly sensitive information or a materially misleading public-safety statement may receive expedited attention. Ordinary changes to company descriptions, future-edition ranking proposals and stylistic preferences may be handled through the usual editorial schedule.
If additional evidence is needed, a case may remain open or be closed after reasonable unsuccessful attempts to obtain it. Operational correspondence may be shorter than a public explanation. No expected response period in this policy reduces any statutory deadline applicable to personal-data requests or other legal obligations.
10. Standards for corrections to journalism and research
A correction is warranted when our own review establishes a material factual error or misleading presentation. The editorial remedy is chosen according to the seriousness and effect of the mistake:
- Routine amendment: correction of spelling, formatting, broken links or other non-substantive details that do not change meaning may be made without a prominent notice.
- Clarification: additional wording may explain an ambiguity or prevent a reasonable misinterpretation, even when the original text was not demonstrably false.
- Substantive correction: a material error in a claim, date, attribution, quotation, figure or interpretation of a source should ordinarily be corrected with a clear notice identifying the relevant change and its date.
- Editor's note or follow-up: added where the original report requires material context, an investigation remains unresolved, or subsequent developments are sufficiently important to merit separate treatment.
- Retraction or withdrawal: considered when a central claim cannot responsibly be maintained, evidence is fabricated or fatally unreliable, or publication cannot be repaired by an ordinary correction. Where legally and practically appropriate, an explanatory notice may remain.
- Apology or substantive right of reply: considered where the circumstances and degree of error or unfairness justify it.
A correction should not disguise an earlier error as a routine update. Conversely, revising an analysis because new evidence has emerged is not necessarily an admission that the prior analysis was deficient when written. We may preserve the original URL, distinguish publication and update dates, and maintain internal versions for accountability, while respecting legitimate legal and safety requirements.
11. Right of reply and treatment of affected parties
We seek to take relevant contrary evidence seriously. A materially affected person or organization may request a response to serious allegations or a potentially damaging factual assertion. We may seek comment before or after publication where feasible and appropriate to the public interest, the reporting context and source confidentiality.
A response may be reported, summarized, quoted, linked, reflected in a correction or incorporated into further coverage. We may edit submissions for accuracy, relevance, length, clarity and lawful publication, and we may decline material that is defamatory, abusive, promotional, unverifiable or unrelated. There is no automatic entitlement to equal space, pre-publication approval, deletion of accurate facts or control over our headline and analytical framing.
Where we cannot resolve conflicting evidence, a qualified description of the dispute or a separate follow-up may serve readers better than silently replacing one interested party's account with another's.
12. The Economy Wiki: factual updates and new profiles
Wiki profiles are editorial reference records, not company-controlled pages. Our objective is to present concise, verifiable and useful institutional information. Requests may concern registered names, founding dates, headquarters, official websites, corporate relationships, service descriptions, material organizational changes, public status or identifiable factual mistakes.
We may verify a proposed amendment against public registers, primary sources and independent documentation. New profile requests are subject to editorial relevance, coverage priorities and verification; being an existing company, paying customer or ranking participant does not create an automatic entitlement to a Wiki entry. Claims of superiority, marketing language, unsupported awards, promotional links and unverified projections may be omitted.
An approved correction may update the current profile while retaining an appropriate internal record of what changed. An organization’s current position may be reflected without retroactively rewriting historical facts. A Wiki request is separate from any ranking review; changing a Wiki field does not automatically alter an evaluation or compel ranking inclusion.
13. The Economy Rankings: purpose and review boundaries
The Economy Rankings are comparative editorial and research assessments based on the criteria, evidence and methodology applicable to each published category or edition. A ranking is an evaluation, not a claim that every organization has endorsed the result or supplied all source data. We distinguish review of identifiable mistakes from disagreement with the methodology or its weighting.
A ranking challenge may be considered when supported evidence indicates:
- A material identity, eligibility, classification or entity-matching error.
- A demonstrably incorrect source value, attribution, date, calculation, transcription or factual statement.
- A material inconsistency between the evaluation actually applied and the published methodology for the relevant edition.
- Relevant evidence available by the edition's stated data cutoff that appears to have been materially overlooked or mischaracterized.
- A plausible conflict of interest, improper influence or procedural irregularity affecting the integrity of the assessment.
A request generally does not establish grounds for retrospective change merely because an entity has since improved, supplied a new promotional presentation, disagrees with expert judgment, prefers another set of metrics, has a different commercial expectation or is dissatisfied with a peer comparison.
14. Ranking methodology, edition cutoffs and remedies
The published methodology and edition context govern the assessment. The Economy may make reasonable methodological judgments, use multiple evidence sources and weigh indicators according to the stated evaluation framework. Review does not require disclosure of confidential third-party inputs, personal source details, proprietary working papers or all intermediate analytical deliberations.
When an established error materially affects a published ranking, we may correct the relevant factual statement, classification, profile, recognition text or—where justified—the published result, accompanied by an appropriate notice. Where the issue concerns new information, changed market conditions or an arguable but non-defective methodology choice, the better response may be to record the evidence for the next edition, explain the applicable rule or make no retrospective change.
Rankings released for a specified year are not continuously recalculated on demand. Preserving edition comparability and an authentic historical record can be legitimate reasons to retain an originally accurate evaluation, even if a subsequent edition would produce a different result. Editorial staff determine the proportionate remedy in light of the significance of the issue and effects on other evaluated entities.
15. Ranking recognition, licenses and commercial independence
Ranking recognition and commercial use of official ranking logos, badges or other licensed assets are separate from the underlying research decision. An entity may be named or evaluated without purchasing anything. Purchase or non-purchase of a digital badge, recognition license, advertising placement, sponsored interview or other service does not alter eligibility, scoring, placement, evaluation tiers or the right to submit evidence.
Requests for licenses or purchasing support belong to the Portal's licensing services, when available. They are not a substitute for an editorial challenge. Commercial personnel cannot promise a ranking outcome in exchange for payment, and complaints should not be conditioned on purchase or renewal. Where a substantive conflict of interest is identified, we seek to manage it through appropriate editorial oversight and separation of responsibilities.
16. Decision-making, reviewer judgment and use of assistance tools
Requests are assessed by personnel exercising editorial, research or institutional responsibilities appropriate to the subject matter. The reviewer may consult relevant staff, seek independent evidence or escalate a complex question. An employee or contributor whose interests materially conflict with the matter should not determine the outcome without appropriate oversight.
Tools, including search, automated checks and staff-selected AI-assisted drafting or synthesis, may support organization of evidence and preparation of text. They do not confer authority to decide an editorial complaint or ranking challenge. The substantive assessment, final content and publication authorization remain human responsibilities. Source verification and editorial independence remain necessary regardless of the tools used.
We may restrict access to case files, source identities, other submitters' evidence, editorial deliberations and unpublished calculations to protect confidentiality, intellectual property, third-party rights and the integrity of the review process.
17. Decisions, communications and publication of outcomes
A review may conclude with one or more of the following outcomes:
- The request is approved and a factual correction or Wiki update is made.
- A clarification, attribution change, editor's note, right of reply or follow-up publication is made.
- A ranking-related factual error or documented methodological application issue is corrected, or evidence is reserved for a later edition.
- A partial amendment is made while the remaining requests are declined or deferred.
- No change is made because the evidence is insufficient, the published statement remains supportable or the request concerns a reasonable editorial judgment.
- The issue is referred for specialist, legal, privacy or other appropriate review.
Where feasible, we communicate the disposition and a concise explanation to the verified submitter. An approval does not necessarily mean the requested wording will be adopted verbatim. A private explanation does not create an obligation to publish the entire complaint, underlying file, correspondence or scoring record. An editorial notice should make material public corrections understandable without unnecessarily identifying the private complainant.
18. Reconsideration and repeated complaints
A declined or completed request may be reconsidered when the submitter identifies material new evidence, a substantial factual oversight, a demonstrable procedural error or another specific reason why the earlier decision requires review. Requests for reconsideration should cite the earlier case reference where available, specify the claimed defect and supply the new supporting material.
Reconsideration is not a guarantee of a different outcome or an unlimited series of reviews of the same argument. We may consolidate repeated or substantially identical submissions, decline to reopen a case lacking new grounds, or direct future-edition proposals to the applicable research schedule. A genuinely new factual error is assessed on its merits even if an earlier and different challenge was declined.
Nothing in this section restricts rights to make legally protected complaints or to seek remedies from a competent authority or court.
19. Public record, historical integrity and corrections notices
Our default is to maintain an intelligible public record. For material corrections, we may append a dated correction note, distinguish original publication from a later update, link related reporting or explain that a text has been withdrawn. For Wiki entries and rankings, the degree of public annotation may differ from a news article because reference profiles and periodic editions have distinct publishing purposes.
We do not promise that every technical edit will appear in an exhaustive public change log. Equally, we do not regard a silent rewrite of a materially false or misleading publication as an adequate substitute for a proportionate notice. We may restrict or remove material in exceptional situations involving safety, privacy, legal obligations or other substantial justification.
Archival preservation does not mean every disputed assertion must remain online unqualified. Appropriate corrections, contextual notes and lawful restrictions may be necessary to keep the historical record fair and useful.
20. Confidentiality, personal information and records
Correspondence and evidence submitted for review are treated as private case material unless a lawful basis or the sender's informed permission supports wider use, or publication of a verified fact is justified by editorial purposes. We may share necessary excerpts with relevant editors, researchers, legal advisers, hosting and communication service providers or persons whose response is needed for verification, subject to appropriate safeguards. We do not promise absolute confidentiality where disclosure is required by law or necessary to address a serious allegation fairly.
We may retain the original submission, attachments, correspondence, verification and final decision records as needed for accountability, editorial history, legal obligations, misuse prevention or related future challenges. A case being marked completed does not automatically delete it. Retention and personal-data rights are governed more fully by the Privacy Policy. Do not include unnecessary personal data or confidential third-party material in a submission.
21. Misuse, abusive complaints and urgent legal matters
We may refuse to engage with threats, harassment, impersonation, knowingly falsified evidence, malware, fraudulent attempts to obtain another person's records or repeated campaigns designed primarily to disrupt operations. This does not prevent us from correcting a verifiable factual error that is independently brought to our attention, even if the sender's conduct is inappropriate.
Requests involving threats to life or safety, potentially unlawful disclosure of sensitive personal information, credible forged documents, a court order or urgent legal preservation may be escalated outside the ordinary editorial queue. Such issues should identify the urgency and provide supporting evidence. This policy does not replace formal service of legal proceedings or applicable legal notices.
22. Data-protection complaints and external rights
Editorial reconsideration and GDPR rights are separate processes. A request to correct a person's inaccurate personal data may carry rights under applicable data-protection law, including rights of rectification, subject to lawful conditions or exemptions. A request to change a comparative assessment, a prediction or an independently expressed editorial opinion does not automatically constitute a personal-data correction right. Where a publication contains personal data, we consider both the right to data protection and the right to freedom of expression and information in their proper legal context.
For privacy complaints, data-access requests and related statutory rights, contact [email protected]. Eligible individuals may also complain to the competent data-protection supervisory authority, including the Irish Data Protection Commission. Applicable journalism-related provisions of Irish law are assessed case by case; this policy does not claim a blanket exemption from privacy law. An individual may also seek legal advice and use judicial or regulatory remedies where available. We do not represent that The Economy belongs to a particular external press-complaints scheme unless membership is expressly stated elsewhere and verified.
23. Governance and amendment of this policy
This procedure is administered within The Economy's editorial and institutional governance. Its purpose is to establish a repeatable, evidence-based method of correcting mistakes and addressing disputes without surrendering editorial independence. We may revise procedures to reflect changes in our publishing operations, rankings systems, Portal features, legal requirements or standards of professional practice.
The current public version is maintained at economy.ac/corrections-complaints. The revision date above identifies this draft; its operational effect begins when adopted and published. Material changes to the policy will be reflected in the public text. Earlier submissions may require consideration under the practices and legal duties applicable when they were received.
24. Contacts and related policies
Wiki updates: portal.economy.ac/portal/wiki?tab=update (when enabled).
Ranking reviews and challenges: portal.economy.ac/portal/rankings?tab=review (when enabled).
General Portal services: portal.economy.ac.
Corrections & Complaints: the dedicated contact published in the footer at economy.ac; if an online form is marked "Being prepared," use the published contact rather than an inactive form.
Privacy and personal-data rights: [email protected].
Editorial principles: The Economy Ethics Code.
Personal-data processing: The Economy Privacy Policy.
The Economy — Gordon Institute Limited
60 Merrion Square South, Dublin 2, Co. Dublin, D02 HE24, Ireland
Our commitment is to correct demonstrable mistakes, consider substantiated complaints fairly and maintain a transparent and defensible publication record. The review mechanism is designed to strengthen accuracy and accountability, not to enable the purchase of editorial outcomes or the suppression of independent analysis.
