Corrections Policy

PGY Zero is written by physicians for applicants who are making high-stakes decisions. Errors in this context are not embarrassments to be managed quietly—they are harms to be corrected transparently. This policy describes exactly how we do that.

Our Commitment to Accuracy

Accuracy at PGY Zero is an editorial obligation, not a brand position. Every factual claim we publish is expected to be verifiable, appropriately hedged, and current at time of publication. When we fall short of that standard, we say so in the article itself, not in an internal note visible only to us.

We do not silently edit published content to remove errors. We do not bury corrections in metadata. If a reader made a decision based on something we wrote and what we wrote was wrong, they deserve to know—and so does every reader who encounters that page afterward.

What Counts as a Correctable Error

We recognize three tiers of correctable error:

Tier 1 — Factual or statistical error. A claim that is demonstrably false: a misstatement of how ERAS works, an incorrect description of ECFMG certification requirements, an inaccurate characterization of NRMP policy, a figure on a data page that does not match the cited source. These are corrected as quickly as possible after verification, typically within one business day of a confirmed error.
Tier 2 — Materially outdated information. Information that was accurate when published but has since changed in a way that would mislead a current applicant—for example, a policy change by ACGME, a structural change to the Match, or updated USMLE Step reporting practices. These are corrected inline and the article receives a dated correction notice. If the change is prospective rather than error-based, it may be handled as an Update (see the Updates vs. Corrections section below).
Tier 3 — Meaning-altering typographical error. A typo, transposition, or punctuation error that changes what a sentence means or could cause a reader to act on incorrect information. Cosmetic typos that do not affect meaning are fixed silently and are not logged as corrections.

The following are not correctable under this policy:

Editorial opinions and interpretations. PGY Zero takes positions on strategy, framing, and how to read program behavior. Disagreeing with our interpretation is legitimate, but interpretation is not a factual error.
Stylistic and tonal choices. Voice, structure, emphasis, and word choice are editorial decisions. Requests to soften, strengthen, or reframe content for reasons unrelated to factual accuracy are not processed under this policy.
Claims made by third parties in linked sources or quoted materials. We are responsible for our characterization of those sources; we are not responsible for the sources themselves.

How to Submit a Correction Request

Send an email to corrections@pgyzero.com with the subject line: Correction Request – [page title or slug]

Your submission must include all four of the following fields. Incomplete submissions will be returned with a request for the missing information, which resets the review clock.

URL of the specific page containing the error.
The error as written—copy the exact sentence or passage you believe is incorrect.
The correct information—state what you believe the accurate version to be.
Supporting source—provide a link or citation to an authoritative source that supports the correction. Acceptable sources include official program documentation, NRMP publications, ACGME requirements, ECFMG/Intealth materials, peer-reviewed literature, and official government sources. Personal experience or anecdote alone is not sufficient to trigger a factual correction, though it may prompt an internal review.

We will acknowledge receipt within two business days. If you do not receive an acknowledgment, assume the email did not reach us and resubmit.

Review and Decision Process

All correction requests are reviewed by the PGY Zero editorial team. Review involves three steps:

Verification of the claimed error. We check the original passage against the source cited in the submission and against any additional authoritative sources we identify independently. If the original passage was sourced, we re-examine that source.
Assessment of materiality. We determine which correction tier applies and whether the error, if confirmed, would have meaningfully misled a reader acting on the information.
Decision. We confirm the correction, decline it, or request additional information from the submitter.

Our target is to reach a decision within five business days of a complete submission. Complex factual questions involving primary source research may take longer; we will notify the submitter if that is the case.

If we disagree with a submitted correction—meaning we reviewed the claim and concluded the original content was accurate—we will reply to the submitter explaining our reasoning and the sources we relied on. We do not simply decline without explanation.

Conflicts of Interest in the Review Process

When the editorial team member who originally drafted the content under review is the same person who would lead the correction review, a second independent reviewer is required before any decision is finalized. This applies to both confirmations and denials. The goal is to prevent the original author's investment in their own framing from determining whether an error is acknowledged.

We do not have a formal external ombudsperson at this time. If that changes, this section will be updated.

How We Implement Corrections

Confirmed corrections are implemented as follows:

The incorrect text is corrected inline in the article body.
A Correction Notice is appended to the article, visible to all readers, carrying the date the correction was made and a plain-language description of what changed and why. We do not use euphemistic language in correction notices ("we have updated our guidance to reflect…" when the prior guidance was wrong).
The correction is logged in the public Correction Log (see below).

We do not delete the prior version of the text from the live page without notation. If a reader saw the uncorrected version, the correction notice ensures they will know something changed if they return.

Retractions

Retraction—removal of an entire page from active publication—is reserved for circumstances where a correction is insufficient because the foundational premise of the content is false, or where continued publication poses a meaningful risk of patient harm or serious applicant harm that cannot be remediated by inline correction.

Retracted pages are not deleted. They remain accessible at their original URL with a prominent retraction notice stating the date of retraction, the reason, and, where possible, a brief explanation of what was wrong. Disappearing content without explanation is not consistent with this policy's transparency standard.

Retractions are rare and require agreement among the full available editorial team, not a unilateral decision by a single reviewer.

Updates vs. Corrections

These are distinct and we treat them differently:

A Correction acknowledges that something we published was wrong at the time we published it. It carries a Corrected notice with the date. It is logged in the Correction Log.
An Update reflects that circumstances have changed—new NRMP data released, a policy revised by ACGME, a change in USMLE reporting—and the content needed to be brought current. The original content was not wrong when published; the world changed. Updates carry an Updated timestamp and a brief note on what changed. They are not logged as corrections.

We do not use the Update mechanism to reclassify corrections. If something was wrong when we wrote it, it gets a correction notice regardless of how much time has passed.

Correction Log

All material corrections—Tier 1 and Tier 2, and any Tier 3 errors we judge to have meaningfully affected reader understanding—are listed in the public correction log below in reverse chronological order.

Each log entry includes: the date the correction was implemented, the title and URL of the affected page, and a plain-language description of what was changed.

Correction Log

No material corrections have been logged to date. This log will be populated as corrections are made and will remain visible in full.

Appeals

If your correction request is denied and you believe we reached the wrong conclusion, you may request a one-time appeal by replying to the denial email with the subject line Appeal – [original subject line]. Appeals must include additional sourcing or reasoning not present in the original submission. An appeal that restates the original submission without new material will not receive a different outcome.

The editorial team's decision on appeal is final. We are not able to commit to ongoing correspondence on a single correction request beyond the initial decision and one appeal cycle.

Scope and Limitations

This policy covers editorial content published at pgyzero.com under PGY Zero's authorship. It does not cover:

Third-party links. We link to external sources for reference. We are not responsible for the accuracy of content on those sites and cannot process correction requests about them. If a linked source contains an error, contact that source directly.
User-submitted comments or community content, if and when such features exist on this site. Those are governed by separate moderation policies.
PGY Zero content republished or syndicated on third-party platforms. We can only implement corrections on content we directly control at pgyzero.com.

Policy Version and Review Cadence

This policy was last reviewed and updated in 2025. It is reviewed on an annual basis, or sooner if a correction incident reveals a gap in the process that needs to be addressed before the next scheduled review.

If this policy changes materially, the revision date above will be updated and the nature of the change will be noted in the Correction Log.