My professor was the corresponding author of an article written by me as first author and one second co-author. Having the correspondence with the editor, the professor didn't give much information about the actual status of the article, allthough I asked several times for it.
Some months later, I got the notice that the article is now published. I never got a final proof of the article from the professor/ corresponding author and when I read through the published version, I was in huge shock as I noticed some formatting issues. However, the worst and most severe thing is, that one sentence was "corrected", stating the contrary of what it was supposed to mean. Obviously there is now a mistake in the article. This mistake doesn't affect the measurements results, but it is contradictful within the overall statement of the article.
I asked my professor about writing an erratum concerning this issue. The answer was, that he assumes this sentence not to be noticed and therefore, an erratum would be too much effort. I am feeling really bad being the first author of this paper, where I know about the mistake. Do you think I can ask the journal for an erratum without the consens of my professor?
Furthermore, I want to publish one more article of the work I have done, but the professor still claims the corresponding authorship. As my professor answers my emails only within months and as I don't have much trust in his actions anymore, I really don't know what to do. Does anybody have experience with such a situation?
EDIT: thank you for your answers, they are very helpful to me. The paper is a non-open access paper and already published in a printed issue of the journal. Furthermore, it is about a subject what I am not researching anymore, so there are no follow-up papers planned in the same journal.
I think my corresponding author will not be amused when I am writing the publisher as he already refused a corrigendum. You see this is a really tricky situation. What about writing a comment to the paper? I already saw remarks from third researchers concerning existing papers...maybe that could be a solution?