Corrections Policy

We publish information that people act on under deadline. That makes an uncorrected error more expensive here than on most websites: a wrong eligibility rule can cost someone a funding cycle. So corrections are not an embarrassment to be minimised — they are the mechanism that makes the rest of the site trustworthy, and a report of one is the most useful message we receive.

1. What to include

A report we can act on immediately contains four things:

1. The page URL Full address, so we are looking at the same page you are.
2. The exact text Copy and paste the sentence or field you believe is wrong, rather than describing it. Pages are long and paraphrase costs a round trip.
3. What it should say Your understanding of the correct position.
4. A source, if you have one A link to the provider’s or authority’s own page supporting the correction. This is the single biggest accelerator: with a source link, a correction is often made the same day.

We verify everything against the primary official source before changing it, including reports from the organisation itself. That is not distrust; it is the same standard applied to our own writers.

2. Our response times

Stage	Target
Acknowledge that we received your report	5 working days
Acknowledge a report from a provider or institution about a page covering them	3 working days
Investigate and decide	10 working days from acknowledgement
Fix a broken or redirected outbound link	As soon as confirmed, usually the same week
Remove or flag something actively dangerous — for example a link that now points to a fraudulent site	Immediately on confirmation, ahead of any other queue

We reply to every report that includes a way to reply, including the ones where we conclude the page was right. If we disagree with you, we will tell you why and cite the source we relied on.

3. What happens to the page

We grade corrections into four levels, and the level determines what appears publicly.

Level 1 — Typographical

Spelling, punctuation, a broken tag, a formatting fault. Fixed silently. No note, because nothing a reader relied on has changed. The updated date changes.

Level 2 — Clarification

The page was accurate but ambiguous enough to be misread. Rewritten, and a note added at the foot of the page describing what was clarified and when. Nothing is deleted.

Level 3 — Factual correction

The page stated something that was wrong. Corrected, with a dated correction note at the foot of the page stating what the page previously said, what it says now, and the source. We do not paper over the original error — a correction that hides what was wrong tells a returning reader nothing.

Level 4 — Retraction

The central claim of the page was wrong, or the page was based on a source we should not have relied on. The page stays at its URL with a prominent retraction notice at the top explaining what was wrong and why. We do not delete it. Deleting a retracted page breaks inbound links, hides the error from anyone who acted on it, and is functionally a cover-up.

4. Verification dates versus corrections

These are different and it is worth being precise about it.

• The Last verified date changes when someone re-reads the governing official source and confirms our text still matches. It can change without any edit to the page.
• A correction note appears when something we published was wrong.
• An updated date changes on any edit, including a typo.

A programme changing its own rules is not an error on our part — but leaving our page describing the old rules after the change is, and we treat it as a Level 3 correction once we know.

5. Retiring pages

We retire a scholarship profile when the scheme permanently closes, when the administering body withdraws it, or when we can no longer verify it against any official source. Retired programme pages are removed rather than left published, because a live-looking page for a dead scheme costs students real time. The removal is deliberate and the URL then returns our 404 page, which explains why a programme page may have gone and invites you to ask.

This is the one case where we remove rather than annotate, and the reason is that the harm runs the other way: nobody is misled by the absence of a closed programme, but people are actively misled by its presence.

6. What we will not do

• Remove accurate information because an organisation dislikes it. Providers have a right of reply under our editorial policy, not a right of deletion.
• Silently rewrite history. Material errors are logged on the page. We do not quietly change a claim and leave the page looking as though it always said the new thing.
• Correct on the basis of an unsourced assertion. Including from us. Everything traces back to the primary source.
• Change editorial judgement because it attracted complaints. If the facts are right and the framing is fair, volume of objection does not move it.

7. If you are not satisfied

Reply to our decision and ask for it to be escalated. An editor who was not involved in the original page or the first decision will review it and respond within a further 10 working days. If you are the organisation covered, that review will also consider whether a published response from you is warranted.

8. Reporting something urgent

Change log: 11 September 2026 — first published.