Good evidence deserves a second look

Monitor meaning, not only uptime

A source watch asks whether a change in evidence affects something you have already published or relied on. A working URL is not enough. A source may have a correction, a new version, or a notice that needs interpretation. Conversely, a temporary access failure is not a substantive change to its findings.

Build an inventory of sources linked to specific claims. Prioritize the material supporting important conclusions, quantities, and frequently reused explanations. Assign a review owner before enabling notifications. An unowned alert is not a completed correction process.

Use update channels as evidence to inspect

Crossref’s Retraction Watch API announcement describes the availability of Retraction Watch retractions and corrections through its REST API. Such metadata is a useful discovery input, but a workflow should still inspect the relevant notice and account for incomplete coverage.

Preserve the original signal, source, observed time, and work identifier. Keep discovery separate from assessment: finding a notice does not yet tell you which dependent claims need revision. Avoid drawing conclusions about misconduct or unrelated work from an update label alone.

Keep a baseline and a useful event vocabulary

Store the source version and metadata used during the original review. Where appropriate and permitted, retain a content snapshot or a hash. A hash signals a change but does not explain it. Keep a readable locator for the supporting passage.

Separate metadata changes, content revisions, correction notices, retraction notices, and access failures. Group duplicate signals while retaining their origins. Record a newly observed old notice as newly observed, not newly published. This prevents your alert history from implying knowledge of a source before monitoring began.

Connect the notice to a decision

An alert should identify the source, the observed event, the affected claims, the owner, and the requested action. Use the actual dependencies, not only similar keywords, to locate downstream material. A corrected number may affect one statement while leaving a citation used for background unchanged.

Possible review outcomes include no impact, metadata correction, claim qualification, citation replacement, withdrawal of an unsupported statement, or expert review. Preserve the reason for closing the event. Dismissing a notification should not erase an unresolved evidence question.

Evaluate the watch itself

Test known changes in a controlled source collection. Measure matching accuracy, unresolved cases, alert noise, review workload, and time to a meaningful decision. Choose a cadence appropriate to the consequences of error, and state what the process actually observes rather than promising continuous or comprehensive coverage.

The source-watch field guide explains the full operating model. The structured-data guide shows how versioned evidence records support it. FactAPI.com publishes a workflow design; this static site does not run background monitoring, deliver live source alerts, or offer a monitoring subscription.