Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern Policy

The Jurnal Ilmu Peternakan dan Veteriner Tropis (JIPVET) is committed to maintaining the accuracy, reliability, and integrity of its published scholarly record. When errors or concerns about research integrity are identified after publication, the journal considers the editorial action necessary to inform readers and preserve the transparency of the literature.

This policy establishes procedures for corrections, retractions, and expressions of concern. It applies to articles published by JIPVET, including articles made publicly available online before their assignment to a regular journal issue.

The policy is informed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Retraction Guidelines, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations, and recognized standards for communicating changes to published research.

Post-publication action is intended to maintain a reliable scholarly record, not to impose punishment. Editorial decisions are based on the available evidence, the seriousness of the concern, and its implications for the published work.

1. Principles of Post-Publication Integrity

JIPVET recognizes that errors and research integrity concerns may become apparent after an article has been published. These concerns require an editorial response proportionate to their nature and effect on the scholarly record.

The following principles guide post-publication decisions:

• Published research must remain accurate and scientifically reliable.
• Material errors should be corrected through transparent editorial action.
• Unreliable publications should be clearly identified to readers.
• An allegation must be distinguished from an established finding.
• Authors should be given an appropriate opportunity to provide clarification or supporting information.
• Editorial decisions must be independent of inappropriate financial, personal, or institutional influence.
• Published notices must explain the action taken and remain accessible.
• Changes to the scholarly record must be traceable.

An honest error may require correction or retraction when it substantially affects the reliability of an article. Conversely, the existence of a dispute or allegation does not automatically justify retraction.

2. Corrections to Published Articles

A correction is appropriate when an identifiable error affects the accuracy, clarity, attribution, or interpretation of an article but can be corrected without invalidating its principal findings and conclusions.

Matters that may warrant a formal correction include:

• Incorrect numerical values, calculations, or statistical information that can be corrected.
• Errors in tables, figures, legends, or supplementary materials.
• Incorrect descriptions of methods or analytical procedures.
• Errors in author names, affiliations, acknowledgments, or contribution statements.
• Incomplete or inaccurate funding and competing interests declarations.
• Errors in references or source attribution that materially affect the article.
• Other substantive errors that can be corrected while preserving the reliability of the main findings.

The editor considers whether the proposed correction is supported by adequate evidence and whether the corrected information remains consistent with the study's conclusions.

Where appropriate, JIPVET publishes a separate notice identified as "Correction", "Erratum", or "Corrigendum". The notice identifies the original article, explains the error, and provides the corrected information.

Minor typographical or formatting changes that do not affect interpretation, attribution, or the scientific record may be handled as routine production corrections.

Substantive changes must not be made silently. When a separate correction notice is necessary, it should be linked to the original article.

3. Retractions

Retraction is considered when an article contains seriously unreliable or misleading content, or when a substantial breach of publication integrity warrants formal notification that the work should no longer be relied upon in its published form.

Circumstances that may justify retraction include:

• Unreliable findings. Major errors or irregularities that invalidate the results or principal conclusions.
• Data fabrication or falsification. Evidence that research data or results were invented or misrepresented.
• Serious image manipulation. Alteration of research images in ways that undermine the reliability of reported findings.
• Plagiarism or redundant publication. Substantial unattributed use of previously published work or unjustified duplicate publication.
• Unethical research. Serious violations of applicable research ethics that compromise the integrity of the published work.
• Compromised peer review. Evidence that the editorial evaluation was manipulated or its independence seriously undermined.
• Misrepresentation. Serious deception concerning authorship, identity, permissions, research provenance, or other essential publication information.
• Unauthorized use of material. Serious misuse of data, content, or research materials without required authorization.

Retraction may be appropriate regardless of whether the underlying problem resulted from deliberate misconduct or an honest error.

JIPVET does not retract an article solely because an authorship dispute exists, an author requests removal, or a publication fee remains unpaid, when those matters do not otherwise establish grounds for retraction.

Where a correction is sufficient to preserve the reliability of the principal findings, a correction is generally preferable to retraction.

The decision to retract is made by an authorized, unconflicted editor based on the evidence. A justified retraction may proceed even when one or more authors disagree or cannot be contacted.

4. Expressions of Concern

JIPVET may publish an expression of concern when credible and substantial questions arise about a published article but the available evidence is insufficient to determine whether correction or retraction is warranted.

An expression of concern may be appropriate when:

• Serious concerns about research data or findings remain unresolved.
• An institutional investigation is ongoing or delayed.
• Essential research records or supporting evidence are temporarily unavailable.
• Material questions concerning research ethics or publication integrity require further examination.
• An investigation has not reached a sufficiently supported conclusion.

An expression of concern is not a finding of misconduct and must not be presented as a lesser form of retraction.

The notice should identify the affected article, describe the nature of the unresolved concern, and explain the reason for alerting readers at that stage.

The journal will review the status of an expression of concern when further relevant evidence becomes available.

Following assessment, the journal may issue a correction, retract the article, or publish a notice explaining that the concern has been resolved without further corrective action.

The outcome should be linked to the earlier expression of concern so that readers can follow the editorial history.

5. Reporting Post-Publication Concerns

Authors, reviewers, readers, editors, research institutions, and other parties may notify JIPVET about potential errors or integrity concerns in published articles.

Reports should identify the relevant publication and provide sufficiently specific information for editorial assessment.

Where available, a report should include:

• Article title, authors, publication details, and DOI.
• A description of the alleged error or concern.
• Relevant page numbers, tables, figures, or data elements.
• Supporting evidence or source documents.
• Details of previous correspondence, where relevant.
• Contact information for follow-up, where appropriate.

Anonymous reports may be considered when they include specific, verifiable information.

Persons reporting concerns should avoid publicly disclosing confidential research records or private information without authorization.

6. Editorial Assessment and Investigation

The editor examines post-publication concerns according to the nature of the allegation and the available evidence.

The process may include the following stages:

1. Initial assessment. Determine whether the concern is sufficiently specific and falls within the journal's responsibilities.
2. Conflict-of-interest assessment. Ensure that individuals handling the case have no relevant conflict of interest.
3. Evidence examination. Review the original article and relevant data, figures, correspondence, or supporting materials.
4. Author clarification. Request explanations or documentation from the corresponding author and other authors as appropriate.
5. Independent assessment. Seek specialist scientific or ethical advice when needed.
6. Institutional consultation. Contact relevant research institutions when questions require an investigation beyond editorial authority.
7. Editorial determination. Evaluate whether a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or no formal action is warranted.

Editors must distinguish evidence of an error from an allegation of deliberate misconduct.

A research institution may be responsible for investigating the conduct of its researchers. JIPVET remains responsible for determining whether the published record requires editorial action.

The journal need not postpone a justified correction or retraction solely because an institutional investigation remains incomplete.

If the evidence is inconclusive and the concern is serious, an expression of concern may be considered.

7. Author Communication and Editorial Authority

Authors should be informed of material post-publication concerns and given an appropriate opportunity to provide explanations or relevant evidence.

When a correction or retraction is proposed, the editorial office should explain the scientific or ethical basis for the action.

Authors may be invited to review the factual accuracy of a proposed notice. Editorial control over the wording and publication of the notice remains with the journal.

Author agreement is desirable but is not an absolute requirement for a justified retraction.

The final determination rests with an authorized editor who has no relevant conflict of interest.

If the Editor-in-Chief is directly implicated in the concern, the matter must be handled by an appropriately authorized, unconflicted editor.

The publisher may support investigations and implementation of editorial actions but must not improperly influence the scientific determination.

8. Content of Correction, Retraction, and Concern Notices

Formal post-publication notices must be clearly identified, factual, and sufficiently detailed for readers to understand the editorial action.

Where applicable, a notice should include:

• A clear designation: "Correction", "Retraction", or "Expression of Concern".
• The full title and bibliographic information of the affected article.
• The article DOI and a direct link to its publication page.
• The date of the editorial notice.
• The reason for the action, stated accurately and without unsupported accusations.
• The specific data, findings, or publication information affected, when identifiable.
• The responsible issuing party, such as the editor or author group.
• A description of the corrected information or changed publication status, as appropriate.

Retraction notices must make the retracted status unambiguous and explain the basis for the loss of confidence in the publication.

Notices must avoid language that implies misconduct has been established when this has not been supported by evidence.

Formal notices should be freely accessible and linked to the affected article.

9. Article Status, Preservation, and DOI Metadata

JIPVET recognizes the importance of preserving a traceable publication history when an article is corrected, retracted, or subject to an expression of concern.

Formal notices should be published as identifiable records and linked in both directions with the affected article, wherever technically possible.

When a retraction is issued, the original article should remain accessible and be prominently identified as retracted.

The retracted status should be visible on the article landing page and, where feasible, in the PDF and other available formats.

For editorially significant updates, the journal should register an appropriate notice and associated persistent identifier where supported by its DOI registration arrangements.

Relevant Crossref metadata and links between original publications and their updates should be maintained in accordance with applicable registration procedures.

Where Crossmark has been formally implemented, update information should also be reflected in the relevant Crossmark records and displays.

The existence of a correction or retraction must not be concealed through unannounced replacement of substantial article content.

The journal should take reasonable steps to communicate important publication-status changes to relevant indexing and preservation services through supported metadata channels.

10. Manuscript Withdrawal and Exceptional Content Removal

Withdrawal of a manuscript before publication is distinct from retraction of an article that has already entered the published scholarly record.

Authors wishing to withdraw an unpublished manuscript should contact the editorial office and explain the request.

Once an article has been publicly published, including an online-first publication, concerns about its reliability are considered under the appropriate post-publication procedure.

JIPVET does not ordinarily remove a published article solely because an author requests that it be withdrawn.

Complete removal of published content is considered only in exceptional circumstances, such as a binding legal requirement, serious privacy violation, or substantial risk arising from continued public availability.

Where removal is legally and technically necessary, the journal should preserve appropriate bibliographic information and publish an explanatory notice to the extent permitted.

Removal must not be used merely to conceal errors, misconduct allegations, or unfavorable findings.

11. Confidentiality, Appeals, and Accountability

Information obtained during a post-publication investigation must be handled with appropriate confidentiality.

The journal must protect unpublished research records, personal information, confidential correspondence, and other restricted materials when examining a concern.

Authors and other parties may raise procedural concerns or request reconsideration when a decision is believed to involve a material factual error, procedural irregularity, or unmanaged conflict of interest.

Appeals are considered under JIPVET's Complaints and Appeals Policy.

A request for reconsideration does not automatically suspend or reverse an editorial action.

The journal should maintain confidential records of material post-publication concerns, supporting evidence, correspondence, editorial determinations, and formal notices.

Cases should be handled without unnecessary delay. The time required may vary according to the complexity of the concern, availability of evidence, and involvement of external institutions.

Where the reliability of published findings is seriously questioned and the inquiry is prolonged, the editor should consider whether an expression of concern is needed to inform readers.