1. Principle of record preservation
Published content is part of the scholarly record. Errors and integrity concerns are corrected transparently rather than silently removed. Notices are freely accessible, linked to the article, identify the reason and initiating party where appropriate, and update DOI metadata when technically possible.
2. Types of post-publication action
| Action | When used |
|---|---|
| Minor update | A non-substantive production or metadata error that does not affect interpretation; the change is documented where material. |
| Correction / Erratum / Corrigendum | An error affects part of the article or metadata but the central findings remain reliable. |
| Expression of Concern | Substantial unresolved concern exists and an investigation is incomplete, inconclusive, delayed, or outside the journal's authority. |
| Retraction | Findings are unreliable; serious misconduct or unethical research occurred; the article is substantially redundant; or another major problem makes continued reliance unsafe. |
| Withdrawal before final publication | Used exceptionally for accepted-ahead-of-publication content affected by legal, ethical, duplicate, or fatal production problems. |
3. Retraction procedure
- the article remains available unless removal is legally required or necessary to prevent serious harm;
- each page is clearly marked and linked to the retraction notice;
- the notice states who retracts the article and the factual reason without defamatory speculation;
- authors may agree or disagree; lack of agreement does not prevent evidence-based action;
- Crossref and relevant indexing metadata are updated where possible;
- a retraction is not used merely to punish authors when a correction can reliably repair the record.
4. Complaints
A complaint may concern procedure, delay, communication, reviewer conduct, editor conduct, conflicts, discrimination, fees, privacy, or implementation of journal policy. It should identify the matter, relevant dates or manuscript/article, the policy or error involved, and the remedy requested.
Complaints about an editor are handled by another unconflicted editor or an appropriate publisher representative. Complaints about the publisher that affect editorial independence may be referred to an independent board member or adviser.
5. Editorial appeals
- an appeal must identify a material factual, procedural, methodological, ethical, or conflict-management error;
- disagreement with reviewer opinion or rejection alone is insufficient;
- the appeal should be concise, respectful, evidence-based, and normally submitted once;
- an unconflicted editor who did not make the disputed decision conducts the review;
- the appeal may uphold, modify, or reopen the decision; the independent appeal outcome is final within the journal.
6. Assessment process
- Acknowledge and document the complaint, appeal, or integrity concern.
- Conduct an initial assessment and identify conflicts.
- Appoint an independent handler where required.
- Request a response or supporting evidence from relevant parties.
- Consult COPE guidance, advisers, institutions, funders, or other journals when appropriate and lawful.
- Reach a proportionate, evidence-based decision.
- Communicate the outcome and preserve a confidential record.
7. Confidentiality and non-retaliation
Good-faith complainants, reviewers, authors, editors, and whistleblowers must not face retaliation. Anonymous concerns may be assessed when they contain specific evidence. Knowingly false, abusive, discriminatory, or retaliatory allegations are unacceptable.