Correction to: Public Concerns about Emotion Recognition Systems: A Thematic Analysis

Digital Society (2026) 5:32
After publication of the article, the Competing Interests section required additional information. The section
This research received no external funding. All authors declare that they have no financial or non-financial interests, directly or indirectly, related to the work submitted for publication.
was changed to
This research received no external funding. All authors, except Lucas Noldus, declare that they have no financial or non-financial interests, either directly or indirectly, related to the work submitted for publication. Lucas Noldus has an indirect financial interest through his shareholding in a company that develops and markets software tools used in emotion research.
The original publication has been corrected.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
About this article
Cite this article
Buruk, B., Brouwer, AM., Mecacci, G. et al. Correction to: Public Concerns about Emotion Recognition Systems: A Thematic Analysis. Digit. Soc. 5, 42 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44206-026-00283-1
Published:
Version of record:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44206-026-00283-1

Facts Only

* The research received no external funding.
* All authors declared no financial or non-financial interests related to the work initially.
* Lucas Noldus has an indirect financial interest through shareholding in a company developing and marketing emotion research software tools.
* The publication includes a correction to the Competing Interests section.
* The article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
* The DOI is https://doi.org/10.1007/s44206-026-00283-1

Executive Summary

The publication underwent a correction regarding the Competing Interests section. Initially, all authors declared no financial or non-financial interests related to the work. Following publication, this was amended to state that all authors, with the exception of Lucas Noldus, declare no such interests. Lucas Noldus was identified as having an indirect financial interest due to his shareholding in a company developing and marketing software tools used in emotion research. The article is copyrighted under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, allowing broad use, sharing, and adaptation with credit required.

Full Take

The shift in author disclosure reveals a specific dynamic concerning potential conflicts of interest, highlighting the intersection of academic transparency and commercial interests in the field of emotion research technology. The mechanism employed involves singling out one author for disclosure, which shifts the burden of knowledge onto the readership to recognize that proprietary economic interests exist within the authorship team. This process tests the boundary between scientific contribution and commercial entanglement. The structure suggests an acknowledgment that while the core research may be independent, the tools or methods surrounding the research carry inherent financial weight. The pattern observed is one of necessary disclosure driven by evolving standards for academic integrity in areas where data and tools are monetized. The implication concerns how research built upon complex technological frameworks must account for the funding or commercial context of its components, influencing how readers assess the validity of findings related to emotion recognition systems. What questions remain about the extent to which this indirect interest shapes the interpretation of the thematic analysis? What mechanisms should be established to evaluate the impact of proprietary tools on the resulting research narrative?

Sentinel — Human

Confidence

This text appears to be a standard, machine-generated administrative correction notice from a publisher, exhibiting low synthetic confidence as it mirrors typical editorial documentation.

Signals Detected

Sentence length variance and structure appear functional but not overly mechanical.

The text is a formal correction notice, which exhibits necessary structural coherence without exhibiting the 'passionless' quality of pure synthetic content.

The document follows standard academic/publisher correction formatting, suggesting adherence to established editorial patterns rather than template matching.

The content is a factual administrative correction regarding publication rights and author interests, which aligns with verifiable institutional communication.

Human Indicators

The inclusion of specific citation details (DOI, journal reference, licensing terms) suggests an authentic source document context.