CORRECTIONS & RETRACTIONS

Post-Publication Discussion, Correction, and Retraction Policy

JUPEIS: Jurnal Pendidikan dan Ilmu Sosial is committed to maintaining the accuracy, integrity, reliability, and completeness of the scholarly record. The journal welcomes constructive discussion of published articles and considers issues that may require clarification or editorial action.

Scientific disagreement does not automatically constitute evidence of error or ethical misconduct. When evidence indicates a problem with the published record, the journal determines the appropriate action based on the nature, scope, and significance of the issue.

This policy outlines the journal's procedures for post-publication discussion, corrections, Expressions of Concern, and retractions. Its implementation follows relevant guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), including the COPE Retraction Guidelines.

1. Post-Publication Discussion

The journal welcomes questions, comments, criticism, and evidence-based responses concerning published articles. Such discussions may clarify research methods, findings, interpretations, limitations, or implications.

Scope of Discussion

Discussions may address:

  • Research questions, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual arguments.

  • Research design, sampling, measurement, and analytical methods.

  • Data interpretation, findings, and conclusions.

  • Relevant evidence or literature that substantially affects interpretation.

  • Limitations, reproducibility, and alternative explanations.

  • Potential factual errors or omitted information requiring clarification.

Submission of Comments

Comments may be submitted to jupeis.jomparnd@gmail.com with the email subject line: Post-Publication Discussion: [Article Title or DOI].

Contributors should provide:

  • The article title, DOI, or URL.

  • A clear explanation of the question or criticism being raised.

  • Specific references to the relevant text, tables, figures, or methods.

  • Supporting evidence or scholarly references, where appropriate.

  • Name, contact information, affiliation where relevant, and any potential conflicts of interest.

There is no specific deadline for raising substantive concerns about published articles. Contributors are encouraged to report issues as soon as possible.

Assessment and Author Responses

The editor assesses comments based on their relevance, clarity, supporting evidence, scholarly value, and respectful presentation. Criticism must not be rejected solely because it contradicts the original article or a previous editorial decision.

The editor may request clarification, seek independent expert opinions, and invite the original authors to respond. Responses must meet the same standards of accuracy and professional conduct.

The absence of an author response does not automatically prevent the publication of substantive criticism. Where appropriate, the journal may state that the authors were invited to respond.

Publication and Moderation

Substantive comments and responses may be published as letters, scholarly commentaries, or editorial correspondence and linked to the original article. Submission of a comment does not guarantee publication.

The journal may request revisions or reject material containing personal attacks, abusive or discriminatory language, unsupported allegations, confidential personal information, promotional content, or repetitive material that adds no further scholarly value.

Anonymous or confidential reports containing specific and verifiable allegations of integrity concerns will be assessed under the journal's Policy on Allegations of Research Misconduct. The identity of a contributor whose correspondence is intended for publication will be discussed with the contributor in advance.

Discussion alone does not change an article's status. Identified errors are assessed under the following sections of this policy, while suspected ethical misconduct is handled through the journal's dedicated procedures.

2. Corrections

A correction is an action taken to remedy an error or omission in a published article when the issue can be resolved without invalidating the article's principal findings or overall conclusions.

Circumstances Requiring Correction

Corrections may be issued for:

  • Errors in author names or institutional affiliations.

  • Missing or inaccurate funding acknowledgements.

  • Incomplete conflict-of-interest declarations that can be remedied through disclosure without requiring more substantial action.

  • Errors in tables, figures, figure captions, references, or supplementary materials.

  • Numerical, textual, or typographical errors that affect understanding but do not undermine the principal findings.

  • Other omissions or inaccuracies requiring an official amendment to the scholarly record.

The significance of an error determines the appropriate action. Issues described as typographical errors, disclosure problems, or analytical errors may require different responses when their impact is substantial.

Reporting and Assessment

Authors or other parties should notify the editorial office by email using the subject line: Correction Request: [Article Title or DOI]. The report must identify the affected section, explain the proposed correction, and provide supporting evidence.

The editor assesses whether the proposed changes are justified and adequate. Authors may be asked to submit revised text, corrected files, recalculations, or other documentation.

Changes to authorship must also comply with the journal's authorship requirements. A correction cannot substitute for the resolution of an authorship dispute.

Correction Notices and Article Updates

An official correction notice must:

  • Clearly identify the original article, including its citation and DOI, if available.

  • Explain the error or omission and provide the corrected information.

  • Explain the impact on interpretation or conclusions, where relevant.

  • Include a publication date, be clearly labelled and accessible, and be linked to the original article.

If an article is updated, the changes must be clearly identified and linked to the correction notice. Substantive changes must not be made silently.

Corrections aim to improve the accuracy of the scholarly record and may address errors made by authors or during editorial production. If the assessment indicates that a correction would be insufficient, the editor will consider other actions described in this policy.

3. Expression of Concern

An Expression of Concern may be issued when serious unresolved questions arise about a published article and readers need to be alerted, while the available evidence remains insufficient for a final determination.

Relevant circumstances may include:

  • Serious unresolved questions about the reliability or integrity of the research.

  • An ongoing investigation into substantive concerns or an investigation subject to significant delays.

  • Inconclusive evidence requiring further assessment.

  • Issues that cannot be resolved because an appropriate investigation is unavailable or considered inadequate.

The existence of an allegation or investigation does not automatically require an Expression of Concern. The editor considers the available evidence, the potential impact on readers, and the proportionality of issuing such a notice.

The notice must explain the concerns without presenting unproven allegations as established facts. It must be linked to the article and updated or followed by an appropriate outcome notice once the assessment is complete.

4. Retraction

A retraction is a formal notice indicating that a published article should no longer be relied upon as a valid source because serious problems affect its reliability, originality, or ethical acceptability, or because other grounds specified in relevant COPE guidelines apply.

Grounds for Retraction

Retraction may be warranted when evidence indicates:

  • Unreliable findings resulting from fabrication, falsification, serious methodological errors, calculation errors, or other major problems.

  • Substantial plagiarism.

  • Redundant or duplicate publication without appropriate disclosure, justification, permission, or acknowledgement.

  • Research conducted unethically.

  • A compromised or manipulated peer review process.

  • Fabricated or falsified essential research materials or evidence.

  • The absence of required permissions, ethical approval, or informed consent when this materially affects the ethical acceptability of the research.

  • Undisclosed material conflicts of interest that seriously affect the interpretation of the work or the integrity of the editorial assessment.

  • Other serious issues that constitute grounds for retraction under relevant publication ethics guidelines.

Purpose and Proportionality

Retraction aims to correct the scientific literature and inform readers, rather than punish authors. A retraction may result from ethical misconduct or a significant unintentional error. Retraction alone does not establish that an author has committed ethical misconduct.

Authorship disputes alone generally do not constitute grounds for retraction when the findings remain reliable. Citation issues, disclosure problems, and other concerns are assessed individually; not every issue warrants retraction.

Decisions and Author Involvement

The editor determines whether retraction is justified after assessing the available evidence and relevant guidelines. Authors are generally informed of the identified concerns and given an opportunity to respond.

A retraction may be requested by the authors or initiated by the journal. Author agreement is not required when the evidence supports retraction. Similarly, an author-requested retraction does not automatically establish that retraction is necessary.

Retraction Notices

The journal issues a notice that:

  • Clearly identifies the affected article, including its DOI, if available.

  • Explicitly states that the article has been retracted.

  • Adequately explains the reasons for retraction so that readers can understand them.

  • Identifies the party retracting the article and, where relevant, states whether the authors agree or disagree with the decision.

  • Distinguishes established findings from unresolved allegations and, where the evidence permits, distinguishes ethical misconduct from unintentional error.

  • Avoids unsupported allegations and unnecessary personal information.

  • Remains freely accessible and is linked to the affected article.

The availability and status labelling of retracted articles are described in Section 6.

5. Editorial Assessment and Referral

Concerns may arise through reader discussions, notifications from authors, institutional reports, or communications from other parties. The journal impartially assesses the significance of the concerns and the supporting evidence.

The assessment may include reviewing the article and its publication history, examining supporting materials, requesting explanations from the authors, and seeking independent expert opinions.

Allegations of ethical misconduct are handled under the journal's Policy on Allegations of Research Misconduct, which addresses confidentiality, independent handling, author responses, and cooperation with institutions.

The journal evaluates the scholarly record and does not replace formal institutional investigations into researcher conduct. Matters requiring such investigations may be referred to the relevant institution or competent authority.

If an external investigation has not been completed or is unavailable, the journal may still take proportionate action based on the evidence to protect readers and preserve the integrity of the scholarly record.

6. Treatment of Retracted Articles

Retracted articles generally remain accessible as part of the scholarly publication record rather than being deleted.

The article, article landing page, and available full-text versions must be prominently labelled RETRACTED and linked to the retraction notice where technically feasible.

The journal endeavours to preserve bibliographic records, DOIs, publication histories, and related notices so that readers can understand the status of the article.

7. Article Removal

Complete removal of an article is undertaken only in exceptional circumstances, such as when its availability creates serious legal, privacy, or safety concerns, or when another compelling obligation requires removal.

Retraction and removal are distinct actions. An article is not deleted merely because it has been retracted.

When removal is necessary, an appropriate bibliographic record or explanatory notice must remain available unless a stronger obligation prevents disclosure.

8. Authors' Responsibilities After Publication

Authors must promptly notify the journal if they discover significant errors or concerns in their published work and cooperate in determining the appropriate course of action.

Reports must identify the article, explain the issue and its impact on the findings, and provide relevant supporting materials or proposed amendments.

Authors may respond to scholarly criticism through the procedures outlined in Section 1. Requests for correction, retraction, or removal are assessed under the relevant sections of this policy and do not automatically result in the requested action.

9. Publication, Linking, and Metadata

Published comments, responses, corrections, Expressions of Concern, and retraction notices must be clearly identified and linked to the relevant articles where technically feasible.

The journal makes reasonable efforts to communicate changes in article status through its website and relevant publication metadata, including updates to registration or indexing services where applicable.

Substantive changes must be documented. The original publication history and subsequent editorial actions must remain understandable to readers.

10. Publication Ethics Framework and Appeals

This policy is implemented in conjunction with the journal's policies on Publication Ethics, Allegations of Research Misconduct, Authorship, and Complaints and Appeals.

Each case is considered individually based on the evidence, the seriousness of the issue, fair treatment of all parties, and the need to maintain the accuracy of the scholarly record.

Requests for reconsideration must provide significant new evidence or identify a specific factual or procedural error. Appeals are handled under the Complaints and Appeals Policy and do not automatically suspend editorial notices necessary to inform readers.

Related guideline: COPE Retraction Guidelines.

Summary of Post-Publication Discussion and Editorial Actions

  • Scholarly questions or criticism: Discussion and, where appropriate, an author response.

  • Correctable errors with reliable principal findings: Correction.

  • Serious unresolved concerns: Expression of Concern, where necessary.

  • Unreliable findings or other qualifying grounds: Retraction following assessment.

  • Allegations of ethical misconduct: Handled under the Policy on Allegations of Research Misconduct.

  • Retracted articles: Generally remain available and are clearly labelled.

  • Complete removal: Only in exceptional circumstances.

  • Editorial contact: jupeis.jomparnd@gmail.com