We like to take this opportunity to rectify an error in the schematic drawing in two of our recently published research articles.1,2 A typographical error of a number appeared in Fig Incidentally, this error may have contributed to a misunderstanding of our article in the recent analysis by Cao and Huber [J. Mater. Res., 21, 1810], 3 who used the factor "1" instead of "2" based on the incorrect figure to calculate the representative stress. A comment 4 of this paper is forthcoming (in which we also comment on the new technique developed by Cao and Huber 3 ). In part of another paper, 5 we also showed in detail how we derived the factor "2" (such information was not included in Ref. 1).We would like to take this opportunity to clarify the correct formula we used to compute the representative strain and stress in both articles.1,2 For Berkovich indenter, the representative strain and the representative stress are calculated asrespectively. Here, E is the Young's modulus of the specimen and n is the work-hardening exponent for a power-law hardening metal or alloy. When the indenter angle is changed in a moderate range, the value of ⑀ R varies as ⑀ R ס 0.0319·cot␣, where ␣ is the half-apex angle of the conical indenter, which is shown as Eq. (23) in Ref. 1, and the representative stress is still computed through Eq. (1) in this erratum. In our articles, the representative strain was assigned a physical meaning as the plastic strain in the biaxial stress-strain curve ( Fig. 1