A sentence in “CIC backlog grows as vacancies remain unfilled” (Sept. 8, 2017) read: “In response to an RTI request, the CIC had told the activist that public comments received on the proposed amendments via email were “not diarised”. It is the DoPT (Department of Personnel & Training) — not the CIC — that responded to the RTI request.
Vesna Siljanovska from The China Quarterly, published by the Cambridge University Press on behalf of SOAS, in a clarification, pointed out: An Editorial page article titled “Staring down censorship” (Sept. 6, 2017) had erroneously said in the opening paragraph that the China Quarterly (CQ), published by the Cambridge University Press (CUP), was asked by the Chinese government to block hundreds of articles in China. It was not the journal — CQ — that was approached to block the articles, rather CUP , the publishing house.
A sentence in a subsequent paragraph which read — “This backlash worked and within three days the CQ reinstated the banned content in China.” — should have read: “The articles were reinstated following the China Quarterly’s insistence with the CUP on preserving academic freedom.”
