Correction and Retraction Policy

JESS | PUBLICATION ETHICS AND SCHOLARLY RECORD INTEGRITY

Correction and Retraction Policy

 

JESS (Journal of Education on Social Science) is committed to maintaining the accuracy, reliability, transparency, and integrity of the scholarly record. The journal recognizes that errors, inaccuracies, or research integrity concerns may be identified after publication. This policy establishes principles and procedures for issuing corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, and other appropriate post-publication notices in accordance with recognized publication ethics standards.

PRINCIPLES OF POST-PUBLICATION CORRECTION

Accuracy: Material errors in published research should be addressed appropriately.
Transparency: Significant changes to published articles must be documented and clearly communicated.
Proportionality: Editorial action should reflect the nature and seriousness of the problem.
Procedural Fairness: Authors should have an appropriate opportunity to respond to substantive concerns.
Preservation: The publication history should remain accessible and traceable wherever legally and ethically possible.

1. Purpose and Scope

This policy establishes the editorial framework for identifying, evaluating, correcting, and communicating significant problems affecting scholarly articles published by JESS.

The policy applies to all published scholarly content, including Research Articles, Literature Reviews, supplementary materials, figures, tables, bibliographic information, and associated publication records.

The journal seeks to ensure that readers, researchers, and other users of published work are appropriately informed whenever an article is corrected, becomes subject to a formal expression of concern, or is retracted.

Decisions should be informed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Retraction Guidelines, relevant Crossref recommendations concerning post-publication updates, and applicable institutional and legal requirements.

2. Categories of Post-Publication Action

JESS distinguishes among several editorial responses according to the nature of the identified issue and its effect on the reliability of the published record.

2.1. Correction

A correction is issued when a published article contains a material error or omission that should be rectified but does not fundamentally invalidate the reliability of the article's principal findings and conclusions.

2.2. Erratum or Corrigendum

An erratum or corrigendum may be used to identify an error introduced during production or attributable to the authors, respectively. The journal may use the general term Correction for either situation to maintain consistent terminology.

2.3. Addendum or Clarification

An addendum or clarification may provide information necessary to understand a published article without replacing its findings or concealing the original publication history. The need for a separate public notice depends on the significance of the additional information.

2.4. Expression of Concern

An expression of concern is a formal notice informing readers that credible and potentially serious questions about a published article remain unresolved. It does not constitute a definitive finding of research misconduct or a final determination that the article must be retracted.

2.5. Retraction

A retraction informs readers that a published article contains serious problems affecting the reliability or integrity of the work and should no longer be relied upon as a valid contribution to the scholarly evidence base.

2.6. Article Removal

Removal refers to the exceptional restriction or removal of published content when continued public availability creates serious legal, privacy, confidentiality, or safety concerns that cannot be adequately addressed through less restrictive measures.

2.7. Withdrawal Before Publication

Withdrawal of a manuscript before publication is distinct from retraction of a published article. Requests involving unpublished manuscripts are considered through the applicable submission and editorial procedures.

3. Reporting Errors and Publication Integrity Concerns

Authors, reviewers, readers, research institutions, and other members of the scholarly community are encouraged to report credible concerns concerning the accuracy or integrity of published JESS articles.

A report should provide, where available:

  1. The title and authors of the published article;
  2. The article DOI, URL, volume, issue, or other identifying information;
  3. A clear description of the suspected error or integrity concern;
  4. The location of the relevant text, data, figure, table, or declaration;
  5. Available supporting evidence or documentation;
  6. An explanation of how the problem could affect the interpretation or reliability of the work;
  7. Relevant correspondence or previous attempts to obtain clarification.

Concerns should be directed to the editorial office through the journal's official communication channels. Reports should be factual, specific, and based on reasonably available information.

Receipt of an allegation does not establish that an error or misconduct has occurred. The journal should assess each concern fairly and distinguish verified problems from unsupported allegations or legitimate differences in scholarly interpretation.

4. Procedures for Editorial Assessment

JESS seeks to employ a structured process for assessing material errors and research integrity concerns identified after publication.

STAGE 01

Receipt and Documentation

The editorial office records the concern, identifies the affected publication, and preserves relevant communications and supporting evidence.

STAGE 02

Preliminary Evaluation

The editor determines whether the issue concerns a minor technical error, a material scholarly error, an unresolved integrity concern, or a potentially fundamental problem with the reliability of the publication.

STAGE 03

Author Clarification

Where appropriate, the authors are informed of the relevant concerns and invited to provide an explanation, original research records, corrected materials, or other supporting documentation.

STAGE 04

Independent or Institutional Assessment

When necessary, editors may consult independent experts or relevant research institutions to clarify complex methodological issues, research data concerns, or allegations requiring formal institutional investigation.

STAGE 05

Evaluation of the Published Record

The editor assesses the effect of the identified problem on the article's findings, conclusions, attribution, ethical compliance, and overall reliability.

STAGE 06

Editorial Decision

An authorized editor determines the appropriate action, including correction, clarification, expression of concern, retraction, or no further action where the concerns are not substantiated.

STAGE 07

Notice, Linking, and Documentation

Where public action is necessary, an appropriate notice is issued, the affected publication is clearly identified, relevant metadata are updated where technically applicable, and the editorial decision is documented.

5. Correction Policy

Corrections are appropriate when errors are identified after publication but the principal scientific findings and conclusions remain sufficiently reliable.

Examples may include:

  • Incorrect numerical values that do not invalidate the principal conclusions;
  • Errors in tables, figures, captions, or labels;
  • Material inaccuracies in descriptions of research methods;
  • Incorrect or incomplete acknowledgment of sources;
  • Errors in funding or competing-interest declarations;
  • Verified inaccuracies in author affiliations or contributions;
  • Production errors that materially affect the scholarly presentation of the article.

5.1. Minor Technical Corrections

Minor spelling, punctuation, formatting, or presentation errors that do not affect the scholarly meaning of an article may be corrected administratively without a separate formal correction notice, provided that the change does not conceal a material alteration of the published record.

5.2. Substantive Corrections

Errors affecting the interpretation, attribution, or scientific content of an article should normally be addressed through a formal correction notice identifying the original article and explaining the changes.

A correction should not be used when the proposed changes cannot adequately resolve problems that fundamentally compromise the article's reliability. In such cases, retraction or another appropriate editorial action should be considered.

6. Expression of Concern Policy

An Expression of Concern may be issued when credible and potentially serious questions arise about the reliability or integrity of a published article, but available evidence does not yet permit an appropriate final editorial determination.

Circumstances that may warrant consideration include:

  • Unresolved questions concerning the authenticity of research data;
  • Significant concerns about research ethics or participant protection;
  • Conflicting explanations regarding important research findings;
  • Credible concerns about manipulated peer review;
  • Ongoing institutional investigation into matters affecting the reliability of the article;
  • Insufficient or inconclusive evidence concerning a serious publication integrity concern.

An Expression of Concern should describe the nature of the concern accurately, avoid unsupported allegations, and indicate that the matter remains unresolved.

An Expression of Concern is not a less serious form of retraction. It serves a distinct purpose by informing readers of a credible unresolved concern while further information is being sought.

Once sufficient evidence becomes available, the journal should review the notice and determine whether to issue a correction, retraction, clarification, or an appropriate statement resolving the concern.

7. Grounds for Retraction

Retraction should be considered when serious and sufficiently established problems compromise the reliability or integrity of a published article.

Circumstances that may warrant retraction include:

7.1. Unreliable Research Findings

Findings or conclusions are materially unreliable because of serious analytical problems, methodological errors, invalid evidence, or other fundamental deficiencies, whether arising from honest error or misconduct.

7.2. Fabrication or Falsification

Research data, observations, analyses, images, interviews, or findings have been fabricated or falsified in ways that materially undermine the published work.

7.3. Substantial Plagiarism

Significant intellectual content has been appropriated without proper acknowledgment, and the nature or extent of the problem makes a correction insufficient.

7.4. Redundant or Duplicate Publication

The article substantially duplicates previously published research without adequate disclosure or legitimate justification, and the issue cannot be appropriately resolved through a correction.

7.5. Serious Research Ethics Violations

Material failures involving informed consent, required ethical approval, participant protection, or other fundamental ethical safeguards render publication of the work inappropriate.

7.6. Compromised Publication Process

Serious manipulation of peer review, reviewer identities, editorial evaluation, or other publication procedures substantially undermines confidence in the validity of the publication and cannot be adequately remedied.

7.7. Other Fundamental Integrity Problems

Other sufficiently established ethical, legal, or scholarly problems make continued reliance on the article inappropriate and cannot be resolved through a less extensive corrective measure.

Retraction decisions must be based on the reliability and integrity of the published work rather than solely on whether an individual is found to have acted intentionally or dishonestly.

8. Retraction Decisions and Procedural Fairness

Decisions concerning retraction are the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or another appropriately authorized independent editor, acting in accordance with the journal's publication ethics requirements.

Before making a final decision, the editor should consider the available evidence, relevant explanations from the authors, independent expert assessments, and findings of institutional investigations where applicable.

Authors should normally be informed of the concerns and given an appropriate opportunity to respond. Their responses should be considered fairly, without assuming that an allegation is proven merely because it has been raised.

Where the evidence sufficiently establishes that an article is unreliable, a retraction may proceed even if one or more authors disagree or decline to cooperate.

Editors must disclose and manage any competing interests arising during the assessment. An editor with a material conflict should recuse themselves and transfer responsibility to an independent editor.

Retraction must not be used merely to resolve an authorship disagreement, methodological debate, or difference of interpretation when the underlying research findings remain reliable and a more appropriate resolution is available.

9. Requirements for Retraction Notices

A retraction notice should provide sufficient information to enable readers to identify the affected article, understand the reasons for retraction, and recognize that the publication should no longer be relied upon as valid scholarly evidence.

A formal retraction notice should normally include:

  1. A clear title identifying the notice as a Retraction;
  2. The full title of the article being retracted;
  3. The names of the original authors and relevant bibliographic details;
  4. The original article DOI or persistent URL, where available;
  5. A clear and factual explanation of the reason for retraction;
  6. Identification of the party or editorial authority issuing the notice;
  7. The publication date of the retraction notice;
  8. Any material information necessary to clarify which aspects of the work are unreliable;
  9. The relationship between the notice and the original article;
  10. The position of the authors where relevant, accurately reported without unsupported assumptions.

Retraction notices should use objective, precise, and professional language. They should distinguish established facts from unresolved concerns and avoid unsupported accusations concerning individual motives or culpability.

A retraction notice should remain publicly accessible and should not be removed merely because the original article or its authors are the subject of subsequent disputes.

10. Preservation of Retracted Articles and Publication History

Retraction does not ordinarily require the complete deletion of an article from the journal's website or archives.

The original article should normally remain accessible as part of the permanent scholarly record, accompanied by a prominent notice indicating that the work has been retracted.

Appropriate measures may include:

  • Displaying a clear RETRACTED label on the article landing page;
  • Adding a visible retraction marking to downloadable PDF files where technically feasible;
  • Providing a direct link to the formal retraction notice;
  • Retaining relevant bibliographic information and publication dates;
  • Preserving the article's original DOI or persistent identifier;
  • Updating associated metadata when technically applicable;
  • Maintaining an accessible record of the editorial action.

Retraction notices and the affected articles should be clearly linked so that readers accessing either record can identify the publication's current status.

The journal should avoid silently replacing, modifying, or deleting material in ways that obscure significant changes to the published record.

11. Article Removal in Exceptional Circumstances

Complete removal or restriction of a published article should be considered only in exceptional circumstances where continued availability creates a serious and substantiated concern that cannot be adequately addressed through a correction, retraction notice, redaction, or another less restrictive measure.

Such circumstances may involve:

  • Applicable legal obligations or binding legal orders;
  • Serious risks to individual safety;
  • Unauthorized disclosure of highly sensitive personal information;
  • Significant violations of confidentiality that cannot be adequately remedied;
  • Other exceptional legal or ethical circumstances requiring restriction.

Where removal is necessary and legally permissible, the journal should seek to retain an appropriate bibliographic record explaining that the content is no longer available.

Removal must not be used merely to conceal embarrassing findings, legitimate scholarly criticism, publication errors, or proven research misconduct.

12. DOI, Metadata, and Indexing Updates

Transparent communication of post-publication changes requires appropriate management of article records, identifiers, journal website information, and relevant indexing metadata.

Where technically applicable, the journal should:

  • Publish a distinct and accessible record for a material correction or retraction notice;
  • Link the notice to the original article;
  • Preserve the original article's persistent identifier;
  • Assign a separate DOI to a substantial update notice where the journal's registration arrangements support this;
  • Register relevant update relationships and metadata with the DOI registration agency, where applicable;
  • Clearly identify the current publication status on the journal website;
  • Communicate significant changes to relevant indexing services when supported by the available systems.

Crossref provides mechanisms for linking corrections, retractions, expressions of concern, and other editorially significant notices to their original publications.

Participation in Crossmark is not presumed by this policy. Where Crossmark or equivalent publication-status services have not been implemented, the journal should still make significant editorial notices visible and directly linked through the official journal website.

Metadata updates and DOI registration procedures must reflect the journal's actual technical capabilities, contractual arrangements, and operational responsibilities.

13. Responsibilities of Authors, Editors, and Institutions

13.1. Authors

Authors should promptly report significant errors discovered in their published work, provide accurate explanations and supporting records, cooperate with legitimate editorial inquiries, and assist in preparing appropriate corrections or other editorial notices.

13.2. Editors

Editors are responsible for evaluating credible concerns fairly, protecting confidential information, seeking independent advice when necessary, and determining appropriate action to preserve the reliability of the scholarly record.

13.3. Research Institutions

Research institutions may assist in investigating serious concerns concerning research conduct, original records, ethical approvals, or data authenticity. Relevant institutional findings may inform editorial decisions while responsibility for the publication record remains with the journal's authorized editorial leadership.

All participants should distinguish honest error from research misconduct and avoid treating a correction or retraction as automatic proof of intentional wrongdoing.

14. Timeliness, Appeals, and Reconsideration

JESS recognizes that post-publication concerns should be addressed without unnecessary delay, especially where published information may be materially unreliable.

The time required for evaluation depends on the complexity of the concern, the availability of evidence, the need for expert advice, and any institutional investigation.

Where sufficiently reliable evidence establishes that a published article requires retraction, the editorial team should not delay necessary action solely because authors refuse to cooperate.

Authors or other directly affected individuals may submit a reasoned request for reconsideration where they identify material factual errors, substantial procedural irregularities, or important new evidence relevant to an editorial decision.

Appeals should be reviewed fairly and, where appropriate, by an independent editor who was not responsible for the original decision.

An appeal does not automatically suspend a corrective notice needed to protect the scholarly record. Any reconsideration should focus on whether the available evidence supports modification, confirmation, or reversal of the editorial action.

15. Standard Editorial Notice Templates

The following examples provide suggested structures for post-publication notices. The actual wording must be based on the verified circumstances of the individual case and approved by the responsible editor.

15.1. Correction Notice

Correction to: [Original Article Title]

A correction has been issued for the article "[Original Article Title]," published in JESS, [volume, issue, year, DOI]. The correction concerns [specific error or omission]. The correct information is [description of corrected content]. The editorial team has assessed the effect of this correction on the article's findings and conclusions, and [accurate statement of its impact]. The correction notice is linked to the original article to ensure transparency in the scholarly record.

15.2. Expression of Concern

Expression of Concern: [Original Article Title]

The editorial team of JESS has been informed of concerns regarding [specific issue] in the article "[Original Article Title]," published in [volume, issue, year, DOI]. The concerns are currently under assessment, and no final determination has been reached. This notice is issued to inform readers of the unresolved matter. The journal will consider further editorial action when sufficient relevant information becomes available.

15.3. Retraction Notice

Retraction: [Original Article Title]

JESS hereby retracts the article "[Original Article Title]," published in [volume, issue, year, DOI]. Following an editorial assessment of [verified issue], the journal determined that [explanation of the problem and its effect on reliability]. The findings or conclusions affected by this issue cannot be relied upon as originally published. This retraction is issued to preserve the integrity of the scholarly record. The original article remains accessible with a clear indication of its retracted status, except where legal or ethical restrictions require otherwise.

These templates must not be used as evidence that an article has been corrected, questioned, or retracted unless the editorial action has actually been determined and formally authorized.

16. Commitment to the Integrity of the Scholarly Record

JESS recognizes that published scholarly work may require clarification, correction, or retraction when significant errors or integrity concerns are identified.

The journal seeks to maintain an accurate, transparent, and traceable publication record through evidence-based editorial decisions and appropriate communication with authors, readers, and research institutions.

Corrections and retractions are essential mechanisms for responsible scholarly publishing. Their purpose is to protect the reliability of scientific knowledge and to help readers distinguish trustworthy findings from information that requires amendment or should no longer be relied upon.

17. Supporting Standards and Related Policies

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Retraction Guidelines. Last reviewed August 2025.
COPE Retraction Guidelines

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Core Practices: Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections.
COPE Core Practices

COPE Council (2024).
Cooperation Between Research Institutions and Journals on Research Integrity and Publication Misconduct Cases.
COPE Institutional Cooperation Guidelines

Crossref.
Version Control, Corrections, and Retractions.
Crossref Best Practices

18. Report a Publication Error or Integrity Concern

Authors, readers, reviewers, and research institutions seeking correction of a published article or wishing to report a significant publication integrity concern should contact the JESS Editorial Office.

JESS Editorial Office

Faculty of Social Science
Universitas Negeri Padang
Jl. Prof. Dr. Hamka, Air Tawar
Padang, West Sumatra, Indonesia

Email:
journaljessfis@gmail.com

Telephone:
+62 852-6363-9233

Contact the Editorial Office →

JESS (Journal of Education on Social Science)

Published by the Faculty of Social Science, Universitas Negeri Padang, Indonesia

Print ISSN: 2622-0741 | Electronic ISSN: 2550-0147