It has been brought to the attention of the publishers that certain sections of Tseng (Reference Tseng2014) are remarkably similar to parts of Karney (Reference Karney2013) and have not been adequately attributed. In addition, some of the material from Karney (Reference Karney2013) has been incorrectly used. The Editor-in-Chief of The Journal of Navigation and Cambridge University Press take an extremely serious view of any and all instances of plagiarism, no matter what the degree. In this instance, the injured author wishes the record to be set straight and the work that is his clearly highlighted. The publishers also wish to convey their sincere apologies to Dr. Karney for the injury caused in this matter.
To correct this matter, the following corrections to Tseng (Reference Tseng2014) are made:
Page 835, in paragraph 1 in Section 4, replace “Thus, the inverse problem inevitably becomes a root-finding exercise.” by “Recently, Karney (Reference Karney2013) reduced this as a one-dimensional root-finding problem which can be solved by well-known techniques. The following paraphrases Karney's description of the method:”
In Page 835, in paragraph 2 of Section 4 replace: “Solve the hybrid geodesic problem: given β 1, β 2, and β V, find the calculated λ 12 corresponding to the first intersection of the geodesic with the parallel of latitude β 2 which the resulting longitude difference of given initial λ 12 in general cases; so adjust β V using Newton's method, secant method, or other root-finding methods until the correct λ 12 is obtained” with the following more clear statement:
“Solve the hybrid geodesic problem: given β1, β2, and βV, compute the longitude difference λ12 corresponding to the first intersection of the geodesic with the circle of latitude ϕ2. The resulting λ12 differs, in general, from the given λ12; so adjust βV using Newton's method, secant method, or other root-finding methods until the correct λ12 is obtained.”
