CORRECTIONS & RETRACTIONS

Post-Publication Discussion, Correction, and Retraction Policy

Jompa Abdi: Journal of Community Service is committed to maintaining the accuracy, integrity, reliability, and completeness of the scholarly record. The journal welcomes constructive discussion of published articles and considers concerns that may require clarification or editorial action.

Scholarly disagreement does not automatically establish an error or ethical misconduct. When evidence identifies a problem in the published record, the journal determines an appropriate response based on the nature, scope, and significance of the issue.

This policy explains the journal’s procedures for post-publication discussion, corrections, Expressions of Concern, and retractions. Its implementation is informed by relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), including the COPE Retraction Guidelines.

1. Post-Publication Discussion

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

Scope of Discussion

Discussion may cover:

  • Research questions, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual arguments.

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

  • Interpretation of data, findings, and conclusions.

  • Relevant evidence or literature that materially affects interpretation.

  • Limitations, reproducibility, and alternative explanations.

  • Potential factual errors or omissions requiring clarification.

Submission of Comments

Comments may be submitted to jompaabdi.jomparnd.com with the 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 raised.

  • Specific references to relevant passages, tables, figures, or methods.

  • Supporting evidence or scholarly references, where appropriate.

  • Their name, contact details, affiliation where applicable, and any relevant competing interests.

There is no fixed deadline for raising substantive concerns about a published article. Contributors are encouraged to report issues promptly.

Assessment and Author Response

Editors assess comments based on their relevance, clarity, supporting evidence, scholarly value, and respectful presentation. Criticism must not be rejected merely because it challenges the original article or a previous editorial decision.

The editor may request clarification, seek independent expert advice, and invite the original author(s) to respond. Responses are subject to the same standards of accuracy and professional conduct.

The absence of an author response does not automatically prevent the publication of a substantive critique. 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, commentaries, or editorial correspondence and linked to the original article. Submission does not guarantee publication.

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

Anonymous or confidential reports containing specific, verifiable concerns about research integrity are assessed under the Allegations of Research Misconduct policy. The public attribution of correspondence will be discussed with the contributor before publication.

Discussion alone does not change an article’s status. Identified errors are assessed under the sections below, while suspected misconduct is handled through the journal’s separate procedures.

2. Correction

A Correction addresses an error or omission in a published article when the issue can be resolved without invalidating its principal findings or overall conclusions.

When a Correction May Be Appropriate

A correction may be appropriate for:

  • Incorrect author names or institutional affiliations.

  • Missing or inaccurate funding acknowledgments.

  • Incomplete competing-interest declarations that can be addressed through disclosure without requiring more substantial action.

  • Errors in tables, figures, 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 a formal amendment to the scholarly record.

The significance of an error determines the appropriate action. An issue described as a typographical, disclosure, or analytical error may require a different response if its effects are substantial.

Reporting and Assessment

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

The editor assesses whether the proposed change is justified and sufficient. Authors may be asked to provide revised text, corrected files, recalculations, or other documentation.

Authorship amendments must also comply with the journal’s authorship requirements. A correction cannot substitute for resolving an authorship dispute.

Correction Notices and Article Updates

A formal correction notice should:

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

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

  • Describe any effect on the interpretation or conclusions, where relevant.

  • Be dated, clearly labeled, accessible, and linked to the original article.

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

Corrections are intended to improve the accuracy of the scholarly record and may address errors introduced by authors or during editorial production. If the assessment shows that a correction is insufficient, the editor will consider other actions described in this policy.

3. Expression of Concern

An Expression of Concern may be issued when substantial unresolved questions about a published article warrant alerting readers, while the available evidence does not yet support a final determination.

Relevant circumstances may include:

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

  • An investigation into substantive concerns that is ongoing or substantially delayed.

  • Inconclusive evidence requiring further assessment.

  • Concerns that cannot be resolved because an appropriate investigation is unavailable or appears inadequate.

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

The notice must explain the concern without presenting an unproven allegation as an established fact. It should be linked to the article and updated or followed by an appropriate outcome notice when the assessment is completed.

4. Retraction

A Retraction is a formal notice that a published article should no longer be relied upon because serious problems affect its reliability, originality, or ethical acceptability, or because other qualifying grounds under relevant COPE guidance apply.

Grounds for Retraction

Retraction may be appropriate when the evidence establishes:

  • Unreliable findings resulting from fabrication, falsification, serious methodological error, miscalculation, or other major problems.

  • Substantial plagiarism.

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

  • Research conducted unethically.

  • A compromised or manipulated peer-review process.

  • Fabricated or falsified essential research materials or evidence.

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

  • A material undisclosed competing interest that seriously affects the interpretation of the work or the integrity of the editorial assessment.

  • Other serious problems warranting retraction under relevant publication ethics guidance.

Purpose and Proportionality

Retraction corrects the scholarly literature and alerts readers; its purpose is not to punish authors. It may result from misconduct or a significant honest error. Retraction alone does not establish that an author has committed misconduct.

Authorship disputes alone do not normally justify retraction when the findings remain reliable. Citation, disclosure, and other concerns are assessed individually; not every instance requires retraction.

Decision and Author Involvement

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

Retraction may be initiated by the authors or by the journal. Author agreement is not required when the evidence warrants the action. An author’s request for retraction does not automatically establish sufficient grounds for retraction.

Retraction Notice

The journal publishes a notice that:

  • Clearly identifies the affected article and its DOI where available.

  • Explicitly states that the article has been retracted.

  • Explains the reasons sufficiently for readers to understand the action.

  • Identifies who is retracting the article and, where appropriate, whether the authors agree or disagree.

  • Distinguishes established findings from unresolved allegations and misconduct from honest error where the evidence permits.

  • Avoids unsupported accusations and unnecessary personal information.

  • Remains freely accessible and linked to the affected article.

The continued availability and marking of retracted articles are addressed 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 assesses their significance and supporting evidence impartially.

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

Suspected misconduct is handled under the journal’s Allegations of Research Misconduct policy, which explains confidentiality, independent handling, author responses, and institutional cooperation.

The journal evaluates the published record and does not replace a formal institutional investigation into a researcher’s conduct. Matters requiring such an investigation may be referred to the relevant institution or competent body.

Where an external investigation is incomplete or unavailable, the journal may still take proportionate action justified by the evidence to protect readers and maintain the integrity of the scholarly record.

6. Treatment of Retracted Articles

A retracted article normally remains accessible as part of the published scholarly record rather than being deleted.

The article, its landing page, and available full-text versions should be prominently marked RETRACTED and linked to the retraction notice wherever technically possible.

The journal seeks to retain the bibliographic record, DOI, publication history, and associated notices so that readers can understand the article’s status.

7. Article Removal

Complete article removal is reserved for exceptional circumstances in which continued availability presents serious legal, privacy, or safety concerns, or where another compelling obligation requires removal.

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

When removal is necessary, an appropriate bibliographic record or explanatory notice should remain unless an overriding requirement prevents disclosure.

8. Author Responsibilities After Publication

Authors must promptly notify the journal when they discover significant errors or concerns in their published work and cooperate in determining an appropriate response.

Reports should identify the article, describe the issue and its effect on the findings, and provide relevant supporting materials or proposed amendments.

Authors may respond to scholarly critiques through the procedure described in Section 1. Requests for correction, retraction, or removal are assessed according to 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 should be clearly identified and linked to the relevant article wherever technically possible.

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

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

10. Publication Ethics Framework and Appeals

This policy is applied alongside 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, seriousness of the issue, fair treatment of the parties, and the need to maintain an accurate scholarly record.

Requests for reconsideration should identify significant new evidence or a specific factual or procedural error. Appeals are handled under the Complaints and Appeals policy and do not automatically suspend an editorial notice needed to inform readers.

Relevant guidance: COPE Retraction Guidelines.

Summary of Post-Publication Discussion and Editorial Actions

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

  • Correctable error with reliable principal findings: Correction.

  • Substantial unresolved concern: Expression of Concern, where warranted.

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

  • Suspected misconduct: Handled under the Allegations of Research Misconduct policy.

  • Retracted article: Normally retained and prominently marked.

  • Complete removal: Exceptional circumstances only.

  • Editorial contact: jompaabdi.jomparnd.com