Post Publication Discussions

Communications regard the scholarly record as a continuing conversation. Publication does not end scrutiny: readers, authors, reviewers, and editors share responsibility for keeping published work accurate, transparent, and open to debate. This policy sets out (1) how readers can take part in post-publication discussion, (2) how concerns about research integrity are handled, and (3) how published articles are corrected, flagged, retracted, or removed. It follows the Core Practices, Retraction Guidelines, and flowcharts of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Part 1. Post-Publication Discussion

1.1 Forms of discussion

• Comment (letter to the editor): a short scholarly response to a published article that raises questions, offers constructive criticism, provides new evidence, or proposes an alternative interpretation.
• Authors’ reply: the response of the original authors to a published comment.
• Integrity concern: a confidential report of possible misconduct or serious error (see Part 2). It is not a public comment.

1.2 Requirements for comments

• Length: no more than 1,000 words and 10 references, with up to one table or figure.
• Timing: normally submitted within 12 months of the article’s online publication. The editors may accept later comments of exceptional importance.
• Content: addresses the scholarly content of the article (concepts, methods, data, interpretation), not the authors personally, in courteous, evidence-based language.
• Format: English with British spelling, APA 7th edition references, with the title “Comment on: [original article title]” and the DOI of the article.
• Commenters must declare any conflict of interest, including any professional or personal relationship with the authors.

1.3 Step-by-step procedure for comments

1. Submission. The commenter submits the comment through the journal’s online system (section: Comments) or by email to the editorial office, quoting the article title and DOI.
2. Acknowledgement. The editorial office confirms receipt within 7 working days.
3. Editorial screening. The Editor-in-Chief or a handling editor checks relevance, significance, novelty, tone, and length. Comments that are out of scope, repetitive, defamatory, or personal are declined, with reasons given.
4. Expert assessment (optional). When technical judgement is needed, the editor may ask one independent reviewer for advice.
5. Invitation to reply. If the comment is accepted for consideration, the editor sends it to the corresponding author of the original article, who is invited to reply within 30 days.
6. Editing of both texts. The editor reviews the comment and the reply. Neither party may add new arguments after seeing the other’s final text, unless the editor allows a further exchange.
7. Decision and publication. Accepted comments and replies are published together where possible. If the authors do not reply in time, the comment may be published with the note “The authors of the original article were invited to reply.”
8. Linking and indexing. Each comment and reply receives its own DOI, is registered with Crossref, and is linked to the original article.
9. Follow-up. If the exchange shows a significant error, the editor starts the correction procedure in Part 3.

Part 2. Concerns about Research Integrity

2.1 What can be reported

• Plagiarism, including self-plagiarism and text recycling.
• Fabrication, falsification, or image and data manipulation.
• Duplicate or redundant publication.
• Authorship disputes, including ghost, gift, or guest authorship.
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest or funding.
• Ethical breaches in research with human participants, such as missing ethical approval or informed consent, or a breach of confidentiality.
• Citation manipulation, compromised or fake peer review, or paper-mill activity.
• Undisclosed or inappropriate use of generative AI.

2.2 Step-by-step procedure

1. Report. The whistle-blower emails the Editor-in-Chief, giving the article title and DOI, the specific concern, and supporting evidence (e.g., overlapping passages, similarity reports, data, images, or links). Reports may be anonymous if they are supported by concrete evidence.
2. Acknowledgement and confidentiality. The journal acknowledges receipt within 7 working days and keeps the whistle-blower’s identity confidential.
3. Preliminary assessment. Within 14 days, the editors check whether the concern is credible and falls within the journal’s responsibility. They may run a similarity check, compare data, or consult an independent expert or the editorial board.
4. Contacting the authors. If the concern is credible, the editor writes to the corresponding author (and, where appropriate, all authors), describing the concern neutrally and asking for an explanation and supporting evidence (e.g., raw data or ethics approval) within 30 days.
5. Evaluation of the response.
   • If the explanation is satisfactory, the case is closed and the whistle-blower is informed.
   • If it shows an honest error, the editor proceeds to a correction (Part 3).
   • If it is unsatisfactory, or the authors do not respond, the matter is escalated (Step 6).
6. Escalation to institutions. The editor contacts the authors’ institution(s), research integrity office, or funder and asks them to investigate. The journal does not conduct misconduct investigations itself but cooperates fully with institutional investigations.
7. Interim measure. While an investigation is ongoing or its result is inconclusive, the editors may publish an Expression of Concern (Part 3.4).
8. Decision. Based on the evidence and any institutional findings, the editors decide whether to take no action, correct, retract, or remove the article. For complex or disputed cases, they may seek advice from COPE.
9. Communication and record. All parties are informed of the outcome. The journal keeps a confidential record of the case.

Part 3. Corrections and Changes to Published Articles

3.1 Erratum (publisher’s correction)

• When: a significant error introduced by the journal during copyediting, typesetting, or publication, such as wrong author names, affiliations, figures, tables, or metadata.
• Action: the article file and metadata are corrected and an erratum notice is published. The notice describes what was wrong and what has been corrected.

3.2 Corrigendum (author’s correction)

• When: a significant error made by the authors that affects the scholarly record but does not invalidate the main findings or conclusions. Examples include an incorrect data value, table, figure, or reference; an omitted funding source or conflict of interest; or a wrong affiliation.
• Not covered: minor errors that do not affect understanding or citation (e.g., spelling, punctuation, or formatting). These are normally not corrected.
• If the error invalidates the conclusions, retraction (3.5) is considered instead. Where the authors made an honest error and can present corrected, valid findings, a retraction with replacement may be considered.

3.3 Changes to authorship

• Requests to add, remove, or reorder authors after publication must give the reasons, be signed by all authors (including any author being removed), and be supported by the CRediT contribution statement. The change is published as a corrigendum.
• If the authors disagree, the journal does not resolve the dispute itself. It follows COPE guidance and refers the matter to the authors’ institution(s); the article is not changed until the dispute is resolved.
• Name changes for personal reasons (e.g., marriage or gender transition) are made on request. If the author prefers, this is done discreetly, without a public notice, and the metadata are updated with Crossref.

3.4 Expression of concern

• When: serious doubts exist about the reliability or integrity of an article, but the evidence is inconclusive, the authors’ institution will not investigate, or an investigation is ongoing and will take time.
• Action: a notice is published that explains the concern without drawing premature conclusions. Once the matter is resolved, it is followed by a correction or retraction, or by an update stating that the concern has been resolved.

3.5 Retraction

• When:
  • the findings are unreliable because of major error or misconduct (fabrication or falsification);
  • plagiarism or redundant publication;
  • unethical research, or use of data without authorisation;
  • compromised peer review;
  • failure to disclose a major conflict of interest that would have affected the editorial decision.
• Who: the authors may request a retraction, or the editors may start one. The editors make the final decision. Where possible, the wording of the notice is agreed with the authors, but the editors may retract without the authors’ agreement.
• Action:
  • the article remains online, with every page watermarked “RETRACTED”;
  • the metadata are updated;
  • a retraction notice is published, stating the reason, who initiated the retraction, and whether misconduct was found, while distinguishing honest error from misconduct.

3.6 Removal

• When: only in exceptional cases, where the article is clearly defamatory, infringes others’ legal rights, is subject to a court order, or poses a serious risk to the safety of participants or the public if acted upon (for example, identifiable personal data).
• Action: the full text is removed, and the title, authors, DOI, and a notice explaining the legal or safety reason remain online.

3.7 Step-by-step procedure for corrections

1. Request. The corresponding author (on behalf of all authors) or any reader emails the editorial office with the subject line “Correction request – [article DOI]”. The email should include:
   • the article title and DOI;
   • the exact location of the error (page, paragraph, line, table, or figure);
   • the wrong text and the proposed corrected text;
   • an explanation of how the error arose and whether it affects the results or conclusions;
   • for author requests, a statement that all co-authors agree.
2. Acknowledgement. The editorial office confirms receipt within 7 working days.
3. Assessment. The editor checks the significance of the error and its effect on the findings, consulting the authors and, if needed, the original reviewers or an independent expert. The editor decides on the type of notice: no action, erratum, corrigendum, expression of concern, or retraction.
4. Drafting the notice. The editorial office drafts the notice in plain, factual language. It cites the original article in full, describes the error, and gives the correction. Authors approve the wording of a corrigendum, normally within 14 days.
5. Production. The notice is typeset, given a DOI, and published online. For an erratum or corrigendum, a corrected version of the article may be uploaded, with a note on its first page giving the date and nature of the correction.
6. Linking and indexing. The notice and the original article are linked in both directions. Metadata are deposited with Crossref (including Crossmark status updates where available) and shared with the indexing databases that cover the journal.
7. Issue inclusion. The notice is included in the next available issue and listed in its table of contents.
8. Closure. All parties are informed. Corrections and retractions are normally completed within 60 days of the decision; integrity cases may take longer if they depend on institutional investigations.

3.8 Model wording for notices

Part 4. Roles and Responsibilities

• Authors:
  • notify the journal promptly when they find a significant error in their own published work;
  • cooperate with investigations and provide data on request;
  • agree among themselves on correction requests.
• Readers and reviewers: raise concerns responsibly, with evidence, through the channels in this policy rather than through personal attacks.
• Editors:
  • handle every case promptly, fairly, and confidentially;
  • give authors the opportunity to respond;
  • document their decisions;
  • follow COPE guidance.
• Publisher: maintains the integrity and permanence of the record, links notices to articles, and updates metadata with Crossref and the indexing services.

Sources

• Committee on Publication Ethics. (2017). Core practices. https://publicationethics.org/core-practices
• Committee on Publication Ethics. (2019). Retraction guidelines (Version 2). https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4
• Committee on Publication Ethics. (n.d.). Flowcharts [Guidance on suspected plagiarism, fabricated data, redundant publication, authorship changes, and ethical concerns]. https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts
• Crossref. (n.d.). Crossmark. https://www.crossref.org/services/crossmark/
• Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(42), 17028–17033. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212247109
• International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2024). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals (Section III.A: Corrections, retractions, republications, and version control). https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/
• National Information Standards Organization. (2024). Communication of retractions, removals, and expressions of concern (CREC) (NISO RP-45-2024). https://doi.org/10.3789/niso-rp-45-2024
• Wager, E., & Kleinert, S. (2012). Cooperation between research institutions and journals on research integrity cases: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Maturitas, 72(2), 165–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2012.03.011