Corrections, Retractions, Expressions of Concern and Article Removal Policy

1. Principles for Protecting the Scholarly Record

The Journal applies the following principles when considering post-publication action:

• published scholarly content should remain part of a transparent and traceable publication record;
• substantive errors or integrity concerns should not be concealed through undocumented changes;
• the editorial response should be proportionate to the nature, seriousness, and evidentiary basis of the matter;
• correction should be preferred where the published work remains substantially reliable and the relevant problem can be adequately corrected;
• retraction should be used where the published work, or a substantial part of it, can no longer reasonably be relied upon or where a serious breach materially undermines the integrity or legitimacy of the publication;
• article removal should be reserved for exceptional circumstances in which continued availability of the content is legally impermissible or would create a serious and compelling risk that cannot adequately be addressed by correction, retraction, or another less restrictive measure;
• persons involved in assessing or deciding a post-publication matter must be free from relevant conflicts of interest;
• post-publication notices should be clear, factual, appropriately documented, and publicly accessible, subject to applicable legal, privacy, confidentiality, and safety limitations;
• editorial action should distinguish between evidence of unreliability, evidence of misconduct, and unresolved concerns.

The existence of an error does not by itself establish misconduct. Likewise, a finding or allegation of misconduct does not automatically determine which post-publication action is appropriate.

The Journal considers the effect of the matter on the reliability, integrity, and legitimacy of the published record.

2. Version of Record and Post-Publication Changes

The formally published article constitutes the Journal’s Version of Record.

After publication, the Version of Record should not be substantively altered in a manner that obscures what was originally published or prevents readers from understanding the publication history.

Where a change is editorially significant, the Journal will normally preserve the original publication record and issue an appropriate post-publication notice identifying and explaining the change.

The Journal distinguishes between:

• minor technical or typographical changes, which do not materially affect the meaning, interpretation, credit, bibliographic identity, data, conclusions, or reliability of the work; and
• substantive post-publication changes, which require a transparent editorial record.

A post-publication notice does not ordinarily alter the original publication date of the affected article.

3. Raising Post-Publication Concerns

A post-publication concern may be raised by:

• an author;
• a reviewer;
• an editor or Editorial Board member;
• a reader;
• an academic or research institution;
• a funding or oversight body;
• another person or organisation with a legitimate concern relating to the published record.

Concerns should be submitted in writing to the Editorial Office and should, where possible:

• identify the article concerned;
• provide the title, DOI, or other relevant identifier;
• describe the issue clearly;
• identify the specific part of the publication affected;
• provide relevant evidence, documentation, sources, or supporting information where available.

Anonymous concerns may be considered where they contain sufficiently specific and verifiable information.

A concern is not dismissed solely because of the identity, institutional affiliation, status, or anonymity of the person raising it.

The Journal may request clarification or additional supporting information where necessary to understand or assess the matter.

Related: Contact

4. Initial Assessment and Editorial Responsibility

Post-publication concerns are subject to an initial editorial assessment.

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated non-conflicted member of the Editorial Board determines, as appropriate:

• whether the matter falls within the Journal’s responsibilities;
• whether sufficient information exists for further consideration;
• whether clarification or additional evidence is required;
• whether an immediate temporary or protective action should be considered;
• whether external expertise or institutional involvement may be required;
• whether any person involved in handling the matter has a relevant conflict of interest.

The initial assessment does not constitute a finding of research or publication misconduct.

Where substantive consideration is required, responsibility rests with the competent non-conflicted editorial authority.

The Journal may seek relevant expert advice where the nature of the matter requires specialist scientific, methodological, ethical, technical, or legal understanding.

Such advice does not transfer final editorial responsibility to the person consulted.

5. Corrections

A correction is appropriate where an error or omission affects the accuracy, clarity, interpretation, attribution, or completeness of a published article but does not render the work as a whole unreliable.

Examples may include substantive errors concerning:

• data or numerical values;
• calculations;
• methodological descriptions;
• tables or figures;
• interpretation or wording;
• author or contributor information;
• affiliations;
• acknowledgements or funding information;
• declarations;
• references;
• bibliographic or publication metadata.

The Journal considers whether the error can be adequately corrected without misleading readers about the reliability of the work as a whole.

A substantive correction should identify:

• the affected article;
• the part of the publication being corrected;
• the original information where necessary for clarity;
• the corrected information;
• any material effect of the correction on the interpretation or conclusions of the article.

A substantive correction will normally be published as a separate, freely accessible Correction, Erratum, Corrigendum, or Addendum notice, as applicable, and linked to the affected article.

Changes concerning authorship or contributor attribution after publication are not treated as routine metadata corrections. Such changes require appropriate supporting evidence and are considered in accordance with the Journal’s authorship and publication-ethics requirements.

A correction must not be used where the required changes are so extensive that the published work can no longer reasonably be relied upon.

6. Errata, Corrigenda and Addenda

The Journal may use more specific forms of correction where this improves the clarity of the publication record.

6.1 Erratum

An Erratum may be issued where a significant error was introduced during the Journal’s or Publisher’s production or publication process.

This may include errors involving:

• formatting;
• typesetting;
• metadata;
• author details;
• tables or figures;
• file processing;
• DOI or bibliographic information;
• other production-related elements.

An Erratum is appropriate where the error can be corrected without invalidating the article as a whole.

6.2 Corrigendum

A Corrigendum may be issued where an author-originated error is identified after publication and the error requires formal correction but does not invalidate the overall reliability of the work.

6.3 Addendum

An Addendum may be issued where additional information is necessary to clarify, complete, or properly interpret the published record but does not replace or invalidate the original article.

An Addendum must not be used as a mechanism for publishing substantially new research that would ordinarily require separate editorial assessment, peer review, and publication as a new scholarly work.

Errata, Corrigenda, and Addenda form part of the permanent publication history and should be linked to the affected article.

7. Minor Technical or Typographical Changes

Minor errors that do not materially affect the meaning, interpretation, reliability, credit, bibliographic identity, or scholarly conclusions of an article may be corrected without issuing a separate formal post-publication notice.

Examples may include:

• obvious typographical errors;
• minor spelling or punctuation errors;
• formatting inconsistencies;
• minor layout defects;
• non-substantive technical presentation problems.

A change must not be treated as minor merely because it is easy to modify technically.

Changes affecting scientific content, authorship, attribution, data, results, conclusions, disclosures, important metadata, or the interpretation of the work require appropriate editorial assessment and, where necessary, a formal post-publication notice.

The Journal does not use silent editing to conceal substantive changes to published content.

8. Expressions of Concern

An Expression of Concern may be issued where serious questions have arisen concerning the reliability, integrity, provenance, ethical basis, or publication history of an article, but the available information is not yet sufficient to justify a final corrective action.

An Expression of Concern may be appropriate where, for example:

• credible evidence raises serious concerns that remain unresolved;
• an institutional or external investigation is ongoing;
• relevant evidence is incomplete or materially disputed;
• the Journal is awaiting information from an institution or other competent body;
• an investigation is substantially delayed and readers should be informed that the reliability or integrity of the publication is under review.

Publication of an Expression of Concern does not by itself constitute a finding of misconduct.

An Expression of Concern should:

• clearly identify the affected article;
• describe the nature of the unresolved concern to the extent that this can responsibly be disclosed;
• avoid unsupported allegations or conclusions;
• identify the status of the matter where appropriate;
• be linked to the affected article;
• remain publicly accessible while relevant.

When the underlying matter is resolved, the Journal will determine whether the Expression of Concern should be:

• maintained where the concern remains relevant;
• updated;
• marked as resolved;
• superseded by a correction;
• superseded by a retraction;
• otherwise updated to reflect the final editorial determination.

Where a subsequent post-publication notice is issued, it should be linked to the Expression of Concern. The Expression of Concern remains identifiable as part of the publication history.

9. Retractions

Retraction is used to correct the scholarly record where the Journal determines that a published article, or a substantial part of it, can no longer reasonably be relied upon, or where a serious breach materially undermines the integrity or legitimacy of the publication.

The primary purpose of retraction is to protect readers and the scholarly record, not to punish authors or other persons.

Partial retractions are not ordinarily used because they may make it unclear which parts of an article remain reliable.

Where a limited and clearly identifiable part of an article is affected while the remainder remains reliable, the Journal will normally consider whether a correction can adequately protect the scholarly record.

Where the unreliability is substantial or cannot be clearly isolated, full retraction may be appropriate.

Retraction may result from:

• honest error;
• research or publication misconduct;
• serious ethical deficiencies;
• compromised editorial or peer-review processes;
• another circumstance that materially undermines the reliability or legitimacy of the publication.

A retracted article will normally remain part of the scholarly record and remain accessible, but will be clearly identified as retracted and linked to the relevant retraction notice.

Article removal is governed separately under Section 13.

10. Grounds for Retraction

A retraction may be appropriate where available evidence demonstrates one or more of the following circumstances and the matter materially affects the reliability, integrity, or legitimacy of the publication:

• serious errors that invalidate or substantially undermine the findings or conclusions;
• fabrication or falsification of data, results, evidence, or other research material;
• material manipulation of images, data, or analytical outputs;
• substantial plagiarism or other serious unattributed use of material;
• significant redundant or duplicate publication;
• unethical research or serious failure to comply with applicable ethical requirements;
• serious deficiencies concerning consent, ethics approval, protected data, or research permissions;
• unauthorised use of data, material, or other research resources;
• compromised or manipulated peer review;
• material misrepresentation affecting the legitimacy of authorship, provenance, or publication;
• a serious authorship or contributor issue that cannot be adequately corrected and materially affects the legitimacy of the published work;
• a significant undisclosed conflict of interest where the omission materially affects the interpretation, reliability, or legitimacy of the publication;
• another major breach or circumstance that makes continued presentation of the article as reliable published research misleading.

The presence of one of these issues does not require automatic retraction in every case.

The Journal considers the seriousness, extent, evidentiary basis, correctability, and effect of the problem on the scholarly record before determining the appropriate action.

Retraction is not ordinarily appropriate where:

• an authorship dispute exists but there is no reason to doubt the reliability or integrity of the research and the authorship record can be appropriately corrected on the basis of adequate evidence;
• the identified error or concern can be adequately addressed through a correction;
• the available evidence is insufficient to support retraction and further relevant information is reasonably expected, in which case an Expression of Concern may be considered;
• a conflict of interest is disclosed after publication but there is no reasonable basis to conclude that it materially affected the interpretation, recommendations, conclusions, or legitimacy of the publication;
• the issue concerns solely the non-fulfilment of an Article Processing Charge or another applicable publishing-payment obligation, which is governed separately by the Administrative Article Withdrawal Policy.

Related: Administrative Article Withdrawal Policy

11. Retraction Procedure and Author Participation

Before reaching a final retraction determination, the competent editorial authority will consider the available evidence and, where appropriate:

• request clarification from the author or authors;
• request underlying data or other relevant documentation;
• obtain relevant editorial or expert assessment;
• consider institutional findings or other authoritative information;
• contact an institution, research-integrity body, ethics body, funding body, or other competent organisation;
• assess whether correction or another less extensive measure would adequately protect the scholarly record;
• consider whether an Expression of Concern is appropriate while the matter remains unresolved.

Authors will normally be provided with a reasonable opportunity to provide relevant information or clarification before a final retraction decision is made.

An author’s disagreement, refusal to cooperate, inability to respond, or non-response does not prevent the Journal from taking appropriate post-publication action where the available evidence is sufficient to support that action.

Where authors disagree with a retraction, the Journal may state that disagreement in the retraction notice where this is relevant to transparency and can be expressed accurately and fairly.

Final editorial responsibility remains with the competent non-conflicted editorial authority.

12. Retraction Notices and Article Marking

A retraction must be accompanied by a publicly accessible retraction notice.

The notice should, as applicable:

• be clearly labelled as a retraction;
• identify the retracted article by title and DOI or other persistent identifier;
• state the reason for the retraction in clear and factual terms;
• distinguish, where possible, between error and established misconduct;
• identify who is retracting the article or otherwise explain the basis of the editorial action where relevant;
• indicate whether all or some authors agree or disagree with the retraction where this is materially relevant and can be reliably established;
• be dated;
• be permanently linked to the affected article.

Where an Expression of Concern has previously been published concerning the same matter and the Journal subsequently decides to retract the article, the retraction notice should state that the retraction supersedes the Expression of Concern.

The Journal will avoid vague wording where sufficient information can responsibly be disclosed.

At the same time, retraction notices must respect applicable legal, privacy, confidentiality, and procedural limitations.

The original article will normally remain accessible.

Its landing page will clearly indicate that the article has been retracted and provide a direct link to the retraction notice.

Where technically feasible, the full-text version will also be clearly marked as retracted without obscuring the original scholarly content.

A retraction does not erase the publication history of the article.

13. Article Removal and Removal Notices

An article may be removed from public access only where continued availability of the content cannot reasonably be maintained because of compelling circumstances, including where:

• removal is required by applicable law or a binding court or governmental order;
• the content seriously infringes legal rights and the matter cannot adequately be addressed through another post-publication action;
• publication constitutes a serious breach of privacy or confidentiality;
• continued availability would create a substantial and credible risk of serious harm;
• another exceptional legal or safety circumstance makes continued publication inappropriate.

Where only a specific part of the published content must be restricted or removed, the Journal will, where legally and technically possible, preserve the unaffected part of the scholarly record rather than remove more content than is necessary.

Scientific unreliability, error, or misconduct alone would normally be addressed through correction, Expression of Concern, or retraction rather than removal.

Where article removal is necessary, the Journal will, to the extent permitted by applicable legal, privacy, confidentiality, and safety requirements, seek to preserve:

• the article landing page;
• bibliographic metadata;
• title and authorship information;
• DOI or other persistent identifier;
• publication history;
• a publicly accessible removal notice explaining the nature of the action.

Where the circumstances prevent disclosure of the full reason, the notice may provide only the information that can lawfully and responsibly be made public.

14. Institutional or External Investigations

The Journal may assess the effect of an integrity concern on a manuscript or published article but does not replace universities, employers, research institutions, ethics bodies, funding organisations, regulatory authorities, courts, or other bodies having formal investigative powers.

Where the matter requires evidence or authority beyond the Journal’s editorial competence, the Journal may refer the matter to or seek information from an appropriate institution or competent body.

The Journal may consider:

• institutional investigation findings;
• ethics committee findings;
• regulatory determinations;
• court or governmental decisions;
• funding-body findings;
• other relevant authoritative evidence.

The Journal is not required to adopt an external finding without editorial assessment of its relevance to the published record.

Likewise, the Journal need not indefinitely postpone necessary editorial action while an external investigation is pending.

Where reasonably necessary to protect readers or the scholarly record, the Journal may issue an Expression of Concern or take another proportionate editorial action on the basis of the information reasonably available.

15. Conflicts of Interest and Independent Handling

Any person with a material conflict of interest concerning a post-publication matter must not participate in its substantive assessment or determination.

Where the Editor-in-Chief has a relevant conflict of interest, responsibility is transferred to a qualified non-conflicted member of the Editorial Board or another appropriately designated independent editor.

Where the matter concerns the Publisher, the Publisher must not determine the scholarly merits of a concern concerning its own conduct or interests.

Such a matter is handled by an appropriate non-conflicted editorial authority.

Where appropriate, additional qualified non-conflicted persons may be consulted or involved, taking into account the nature and complexity of the matter.

Related: Editorial Policies·Publication Ethics

16. Role of the Publisher and Technical Implementation

The Publisher does not determine the scientific validity, reliability, or scholarly merit of a published article and does not independently determine whether a correction, Expression of Concern, or retraction is scientifically warranted.

Substantive scholarly determinations are made by the competent editorial authority in accordance with Journal policies.

Following an editorial determination, the Publisher may implement or support:

• publication of notices;
• updates to article landing pages;
• production changes to PDF or HTML files;
• DOI and metadata updates;
• linking between an article and a post-publication notice;
• technical communication with indexing, discovery, or preservation services;
• digital preservation actions;
• other administrative or production measures required to implement the decision.

Where article removal is required by a binding legal obligation, the Publisher may be required to implement the removal.

Such technical or legal implementation does not convert the Publisher into the decision-maker on scientific validity or research integrity.

17. DOI, Metadata, Indexing and Preservation

The Journal seeks to ensure that substantive post-publication actions remain identifiable through the article’s persistent bibliographic record.

Editorially significant post-publication actions will normally be documented through a separate citable notice rather than by silently replacing or materially rewriting the original Version of Record.

Where such a notice is registered with Crossref as a post-publication update, the Journal will register the notice under its own DOI and deposit the applicable update relationship linking the notice to the affected publication.

The Journal will, where technically applicable:

• update relevant DOI and bibliographic metadata;
• update the affected article landing page and link it to the relevant notice;
• communicate or propagate relevant status changes to indexing or discovery services where such mechanisms are available;
• preserve the publication history through the Journal’s applicable digital-preservation arrangements.

The original DOI of a published article remains part of its persistent scholarly record even where the article is subsequently corrected, retracted, or removed from public access.

Minor technical or typographical changes that are not editorially significant do not necessarily require a separate DOI update record.

The Journal does not claim that every third-party indexing or discovery service will reflect a post-publication change immediately. Updates may depend on the technical practices and update cycles of the relevant external service.

Technical reference: Crossref — Registering updates

18. Administrative Article Withdrawal as a Separate Process

Where an article is withdrawn solely because of failure to fulfil applicable obligations arising from the publishing agreement or Article Processing Charge after acceptance, such action is administrative in nature and does not constitute a finding concerning the scientific validity or integrity of the research.

Administrative withdrawal is therefore distinct from:

• correction;
• erratum;
• corrigendum;
• addendum;
• Expression of Concern;
• retraction;
• article removal undertaken to protect the scholarly record.

The administrative withdrawal process is governed by the Journal’s Administrative Article Withdrawal Policy.

Where the same article also raises a separate concern relating to research integrity, publication ethics, or the reliability of the scholarly record, that concern is assessed independently under the applicable Journal policies.

Administrative withdrawal must not be represented as a retraction or as a finding of research or publication misconduct unless a separate editorial process independently establishes grounds for such an action.

Related: Administrative Article Withdrawal Policy

19. Complaints and Appeals

Complaints concerning the Journal’s handling of a post-publication matter and appeals against a post-publication editorial determination, where such an appeal falls within the scope of the Journal’s procedures, are handled in accordance with the Journal’s Complaints and Appeals Policy.

The submission, Initial Scope and Admissibility Review, assignment of the matter, management of conflicts of interest, substantive consideration, communication of the outcome, and other procedural aspects are governed by the Complaints and Appeals Policy.

This Policy does not create a separate appeal procedure or modify the scope, admissibility requirements, decision-making authority, or procedural effects established under the Complaints and Appeals Policy.

Related: Complaints and Appeals

20. Records and Documentation

The Editorial Office maintains appropriate records concerning significant post-publication matters.

Depending on the nature of the case, records may include:

• the original concern or notification;
• correspondence with authors or other relevant parties;
• evidence and supporting documentation;
• editorial assessments;
• expert advice;
• institutional or external communications;
• conflict-of-interest disclosures and recusals;
• decisions and reasons;
• post-publication notices;
• DOI and metadata actions;
• implementation records;
• complaints or appeals relating to the matter.

Records are maintained with appropriate regard to confidentiality, data protection, legal requirements, editorial accountability, and the need to document the history of significant decisions affecting the scholarly record.

Public transparency does not require disclosure of confidential case files or information that the Journal cannot lawfully or responsibly make public.

21. Relationship with Other Journal Policies and External Standards

This Policy forms part of the integrated editorial governance framework of the International Interdisciplinary Scientific Journal “Expert”.

It should be read together, where relevant, with the Journal’s:

• Publication Ethics Policy;
• Editorial Policies;
• Complaints and Appeals Policy;
• Administrative Article Withdrawal Policy;
• Digital Archiving & Preservation Policy;
• other applicable author, editorial, copyright, licensing, and publication policies.

Where a post-publication concern also raises questions of research or publication misconduct, the ethical assessment is conducted under the Publication Ethics framework while the appropriate action affecting the published record is determined under this Policy.

In developing and applying this Policy, the Journal refers, where relevant, to internationally recognised guidance and publishing infrastructure standards, including:

• COPE Retraction Guidelines — Version 3, August 2025, and related COPE guidance concerning Expressions of Concern and post-publication integrity;
• Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing — Version 4, developed jointly by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA and WAME;
• relevant Crossref guidance on post-publication updates, DOI metadata, and version control;
• other applicable professional, ethical, legal, and technical standards relevant to correction of the scholarly record.

These external sources provide reference frameworks and technical guidance. They do not replace the Journal’s responsibility for interpreting and applying its own policies and for making appropriate editorial determinations.

22. Policy Governance and Review

This Policy is owned by the Editorial Board of the International Interdisciplinary Scientific Journal “Expert” and approved by the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board.

The Policy is reviewed periodically and may be revised in response to:

• developments in publication ethics and research integrity;
• changes in internationally recognised guidance;
• changes in DOI, metadata, indexing, or preservation practices;
• applicable legal or regulatory requirements;
• changes in Journal procedures;
• operational experience arising from post-publication cases.

Material revisions are identified through the version number and review date displayed at the beginning of this Policy.