1. Purpose and Scope
AMG Transcend Association is committed to maintaining an accurate, transparent, reliable, and trustworthy scholarly record.
When a significant error, omission, ethical concern, integrity issue, or other problem is identified after publication, the journals published by AMG Transcend Association must assess the matter and take appropriate action according to its nature, seriousness, available evidence, and effect on the published record.
This policy establishes publisher-level principles governing corrections, Expressions of Concern, retractions, corrected and republished articles, and exceptional removal or suppression of published content.
Individual journals may maintain additional procedures consistent with these principles and appropriate to their publishing workflows.
2. General Principles
Post-publication editorial action must be directed toward maintaining the accuracy, reliability, transparency, and integrity of the scholarly record.
Editorial action must be:
- evidence-based;
- proportionate to the nature and seriousness of the problem;
- transparent;
- clearly documented;
- independent of inappropriate commercial, reputational, institutional, financial, or personal interests;
- implemented without unnecessary delay once sufficient information is available.
The purpose of a Correction, Expression of Concern, retraction, or other formal notice is to inform readers accurately about the status, accuracy, and reliability of published content.
Retraction and other corrective actions must not be used as punishment.
Similarly, concern for the reputation of authors, editors, institutions, journals, or the publisher must not prevent appropriate correction or clarification of the scholarly record.
3. Identification and Assessment of Post-Publication Concerns
Post-publication concerns may be raised by authors, readers, editors, reviewers, institutions, researchers, funders, regulators, ethics bodies, or other parties.
Concerns should be sufficiently specific to permit meaningful assessment.
Depending on the nature of the issue, the responsible editor may:
- request clarification from the authors;
- request original or underlying data, images, documentation, ethical approvals, consent records, or other supporting evidence;
- review editorial or peer-review records;
- seek additional scientific, statistical, methodological, ethical, image, or other expert assessment;
- consult another appropriately qualified and independent editor;
- contact an institution, ethics body, funder, regulator, or other appropriate organization;
- take other appropriate and proportionate steps necessary to evaluate the accuracy, reliability, ethics, or integrity of the published work.
Authors should normally be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to substantive concerns before a final major editorial action is taken, unless immediate action is necessary to protect readers, research participants, confidentiality, legal rights, public safety, or the integrity of the scholarly record.
The existence of an allegation, complaint, automated screening result, or unresolved question must not be treated as proof of misconduct.
4. Corrections
A Correction should be issued when published information contains a material error or omission requiring amendment but the problem does not invalidate or substantially undermine the article as a whole.
Corrections may address matters including:
- errors in data presentation;
- numerical or statistical errors;
- incorrect or incomplete figures or tables;
- methodological or descriptive inaccuracies;
- errors in author names, affiliations, or contributorship information;
- incomplete or inaccurate funding or competing-interest disclosures;
- incomplete ethical, consent, or data-availability information;
- incorrect references or other bibliographic information;
- other errors that materially affect the accuracy, transparency, or interpretation of the published record without substantially invalidating the principal findings.
A formal Correction notice must clearly identify:
- the article being corrected;
- the nature of the error or omission;
- the information being corrected;
- the corrected information or appropriate clarification.
The Correction notice must be publicly accessible and permanently linked to the original article.
The original article must clearly indicate that a Correction has been published and must link permanently to the Correction notice.
Where the published article itself is amended, the existence and nature of the amendment must not be concealed.
Minor typographical, formatting, or stylistic errors that do not materially affect meaning, interpretation, citation, metadata, attribution, scientific content, or reader understanding may not require a formal Correction notice.
5. Errata and Corrigenda
Individual journals may use the terms Erratum or Corrigendum where appropriate.
An Erratum may be used for an error introduced during editorial processing, production, or publication.
A Corrigendum may be used for an error originating in author-provided content.
AMG Transcend Association does not require journals to maintain Erratum and Corrigendum as separate categories.
A journal may instead use Correction as the general designation for formal amendments to published articles.
Regardless of terminology, the notice must clearly explain what is being corrected and must remain permanently associated with the affected article.
6. Corrected and Republished Articles
In exceptional circumstances, an article may require extensive correction that cannot be communicated adequately through a conventional Correction notice.
Where the underlying work remains sufficiently valid but substantial revision of the published article is necessary, the journal may consider publication of a corrected and republished version.
Any republication must preserve transparency concerning:
- the existence and identity of the original publication;
- the reason republication was necessary;
- the nature and extent of the changes;
- the relationship between the original article and corrected version.
The corrected version must not silently replace the original published record in a manner that obscures the publication history.
The original article, relevant editorial notice, and corrected or republished version must be linked in a manner that allows readers and indexing systems to understand the sequence of editorial actions.
Where republication follows retraction or another major editorial action, the relationship between the original article, relevant notice, and corrected or republished article must be clearly identified.
7. Expressions of Concern
An Expression of Concern may be published when substantial questions exist concerning the reliability, integrity, ethical acceptability, provenance, peer review, or other material aspect of an article but available evidence is insufficient to support a definitive Correction or retraction.
An Expression of Concern may be appropriate where:
- a credible investigation or assessment is ongoing and its outcome may materially affect the article;
- available evidence raises serious concerns but remains inconclusive;
- essential information cannot be verified within a reasonable period;
- an institution or other responsible organization is unable or unwilling to investigate a significant concern adequately;
- substantial unresolved questions exist regarding data, images, ethics, authorship, peer review, provenance, or another material aspect of the publication;
- readers should be informed of significant uncertainty while further assessment continues.
An Expression of Concern is not a finding of misconduct.
The notice must explain the nature of the concern as clearly and specifically as reasonably possible without making defamatory, speculative, or unsupported allegations.
Where subsequent information resolves the matter, the journal must update the scholarly record through an appropriate Correction, retraction, clarification, resolution notice, or other editorial action.
An Expression of Concern may remain part of the permanent publication record after the matter has been resolved where retention is necessary to preserve an accurate and transparent history of the publication.
8. Retractions
An article should be retracted where available evidence demonstrates that its findings, conclusions, provenance, ethical basis, or publication process are sufficiently unreliable or compromised that the work should no longer be relied upon as part of the scholarly literature.
Reasons for retraction may include:
- fabrication or falsification of data;
- serious or pervasive data or image manipulation;
- major errors that invalidate or substantially undermine the findings;
- plagiarism or substantial inappropriate use of another work;
- duplicate or redundant publication where Correction is insufficient;
- unethical research that materially compromises the acceptability of the publication;
- invalid or seriously compromised peer review;
- manipulated peer-review or editorial processes;
- publication without required authorization or consent where the problem cannot be adequately remedied;
- materially false authorship, provenance, ethical, funding, data, or research declarations affecting the integrity of the work;
- another serious problem that makes the article materially unreliable.
Retraction may be appropriate whether the underlying problem resulted from research misconduct, publication misconduct, or serious honest error.
A formal finding of misconduct is not required before an article can be retracted where the published work is no longer sufficiently reliable.
The decision to retract must focus primarily on the reliability, integrity, ethical acceptability, and status of the publication rather than on punishment of individuals.
9. Retraction Notices
A retraction notice must be clearly identified as a Retraction and must identify the article to which it applies.
The notice must:
- state clearly that the article has been retracted;
- provide the article title and sufficient citation information;
- explain the reason for the retraction as specifically as the available evidence and applicable confidentiality, privacy, legal, and ethical requirements permit;
- distinguish, where reasonably possible, between confirmed findings and unresolved allegations;
- identify whether the retraction was initiated by the journal, authors, or another responsible party where relevant;
- avoid defamatory, speculative, or unsupported statements;
- remain freely and permanently accessible.
Where only particular authors agree with or request the retraction, the notice may explain this where necessary for transparency.
Retraction notices must be permanently linked to the retracted article, and the retracted article must link permanently to the retraction notice.
Where appropriate and technically supported, relevant DOI, indexing, metadata, repository, preservation, and archiving services must be updated or notified so that the retracted status is accurately reflected.
Disagreement by one or more authors does not prevent the journal from retracting an article where the editorial evidence supports retraction.
10. Status of a Retracted Article
A retracted article forms part of the historical scholarly record and must not ordinarily be deleted, silently replaced, or presented as though it had never been published.
The published article should remain accessible with a clear and prominent indication that it has been retracted and with a permanent link to the retraction notice.
Where technically possible, the retracted status should be evident on:
- the article landing page;
- HTML versions;
- downloadable article formats;
- relevant metadata.
The article must not continue to be presented to readers as valid, unretracted scholarly content.
Retention of the original article allows readers, researchers, indexing services, repositories, and other parties to understand the publication history and the basis for subsequent editorial action.
Retraction therefore corrects the scholarly record primarily by changing and clearly communicating the status of the publication rather than by erasing its existence.
11. Exceptional Removal or Suppression of Published Content
Complete removal, suppression, or restriction of access to published content is reserved for exceptional circumstances and must not be used as an alternative to Correction or retraction.
Such action may be considered where continued public availability would create a serious legal, ethical, privacy, confidentiality, security, or safety problem that cannot be adequately addressed through ordinary post-publication notices.
Examples may include:
- a binding legal requirement or court order;
- a serious breach of participant or patient privacy;
- publication of confidential or legally protected information;
- content whose continued public availability creates a substantial and specific risk of serious harm;
- another exceptional circumstance requiring restriction of public access.
Where removal or suppression is necessary, the bibliographic record and an explanatory notice should remain publicly available where legally, ethically, and practically permissible.
The explanatory notice should identify the nature of the action and state the reason for restriction as transparently as applicable requirements permit.
Removal must not be used merely to avoid reputational embarrassment, criticism, disagreement, or the consequences of publication.
12. Partial Retraction
Partial retraction should be used cautiously.
Where only a limited and clearly identifiable part of an article is affected and the remainder of the work remains reliable, a Correction may often provide greater clarity than describing part of an article as retracted.
Where the affected material cannot be adequately corrected without creating significant uncertainty concerning the reliability, interpretation, or integrity of the article as a whole, full retraction may be more appropriate.
The form of editorial action must be determined according to the effect of the problem on the reliability, integrity, and interpretability of the published work.
13. Authorship, Disclosure, and Metadata Corrections
Not every post-publication change affects the scientific validity or reliability of an article.
Corrections concerning authorship, affiliations, contributor roles, funding, competing interests, ethical information, data-availability statements, trial-registration information, or other metadata may be issued where the underlying article remains reliable but the published record is incomplete or inaccurate.
Authorship changes must be assessed in accordance with the Authorship and Contributor Responsibilities policy.
Previously undisclosed or inaccurate competing interests must be assessed in accordance with the Conflict of Interest and Competing Interests policy.
Corrections relating to ethical approval, informed consent, or clinical-trial registration must also be evaluated for whether the underlying issue represents only incomplete reporting or a substantive ethical concern.
A Correction to transparency information or metadata does not imply that scientific findings are invalid unless the underlying issue raises additional concerns about the reliability, ethics, or integrity of the work.
14. Institutional Investigations and Editorial Action
Journals may seek information from institutions, ethics committees, funders, regulators, research organizations, or other appropriate bodies where a concern requires investigative authority, documentation, or evidence that is not reasonably available to the journal.
The journal is responsible for determining the appropriate editorial status of the published article and is not required to make a formal finding of research misconduct.
Editorial action concerning the scholarly record does not necessarily need to await completion of an institutional or regulatory investigation where sufficient reliable evidence is already available to justify a Correction, Expression of Concern, retraction, or other action.
Conversely, an institutional finding does not automatically determine the journal’s editorial response.
The journal must consider how available findings and evidence affect the reliability, interpretation, ethical acceptability, and status of the publication.
15. Author Disagreement and Appeals
Authors should normally be informed of proposed major post-publication actions and given a reasonable opportunity to provide relevant information, explanations, or evidence.
Unanimous author agreement is not required for a Correction, Expression of Concern, retraction, or other necessary editorial action where the journal determines that action is required to maintain an accurate and reliable scholarly record.
Authors may raise concerns regarding the process through the applicable Complaints and Appeals procedure.
An appeal must not delay urgent action where readers, research participants, patients, or other affected parties need to be informed promptly of a significant reliability, ethical, privacy, legal, or safety concern.
Appeals must be assessed independently from inappropriate commercial, institutional, reputational, financial, or personal influence.
An appeal concerns whether the applicable process and available evidence were handled appropriately; it does not provide a mechanism for an interested party to override an independent editorial decision solely because they disagree with its outcome.
16. Permanence, Linking, and Discoverability of Notices
Formal Corrections, Expressions of Concern, retractions, and other significant post-publication notices must form part of the permanent publication record.
Where technically applicable, formal notices must:
- have their own identifiable publication record;
- include appropriate bibliographic information;
- clearly identify the affected article;
- be linked permanently to the affected article;
- be linked from the affected article;
- remain publicly accessible;
- be reflected appropriately in journal and article metadata;
- receive an appropriate persistent identifier where supported by the publishing infrastructure;
- be communicated to relevant indexing, DOI-registration, archiving, preservation, or repository services where such updates are supported.
Notices must be sufficiently prominent to prevent readers from reasonably overlooking the corrected, questioned, or retracted status of an article.
Corrections, Expressions of Concern, retractions, and related editorial notices must not be hidden, removed, disconnected from the affected article, or made less visible for reputational, financial, institutional, or commercial reasons.
17. Proportionality of Editorial Action
The form of post-publication action must correspond to the nature of the problem and its effect on the published scholarly record.
As a general principle:
- a Correction is appropriate where the article remains sufficiently reliable but requires material amendment or clarification;
- an Expression of Concern is appropriate where serious uncertainty exists and readers should be informed while the matter remains unresolved;
- a Retraction is appropriate where the article is materially unreliable, invalid, unethical, or seriously compromised and should no longer be relied upon.
The seriousness of an individual’s conduct and the reliability of a particular article are related but distinct questions.
An honest error may require retraction where it invalidates the work.
Conversely, misconduct or other inappropriate conduct that does not materially undermine a particular publication may require a different form of editorial or institutional response.
Editorial action must therefore focus primarily on maintaining the accuracy, reliability, transparency, and integrity of the scholarly record.
18. Relationship with Other Policies
This policy should be read together with applicable AMG Transcend Association and journal policies concerning:
- Publication Ethics and Research Integrity
- Data Integrity and Reproducibility
- Image Manipulation
- Research Ethics
- Human and Animal Research Ethics
- Informed Consent and Clinical Trials
- Authorship and Contributor Responsibilities
- Conflict of Interest and Competing Interests
- AI and Generative Tools
- Peer Review Principles
- Editorial Independence and Governance
- Complaints and Appeals
Individual journals may maintain additional procedures for implementing Corrections, Expressions of Concern, retractions, corrected publications, or other post-publication notices, provided that those procedures remain consistent with the principles established in this policy.