Corrections, Retractions and Expressions of Concern

1. Purpose and Scope

AMG Transcend Association is committed to maintaining an accurate, transparent, and reliable 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 will assess the matter and take appropriate action according to its nature, seriousness, and effect on the published record.

This policy establishes publisher-level principles governing corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, and exceptional removal of published content.

Individual journals may maintain additional procedures consistent with these principles.

2. General Principles

Post-publication action must be directed toward maintaining the accuracy 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 commercial, reputational, institutional, or personal interests; and
• implemented without unnecessary delay once sufficient information is available.

The purpose of a correction, expression of concern, or retraction is to inform readers accurately about the status 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 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, regulators, or other parties.

Concerns should be sufficiently specific to permit meaningful assessment.

Depending on the issue, the responsible editor may:

• request clarification from the authors;
• request original data, images, documentation, approvals, or other supporting evidence;
• review editorial or peer-review records;
• seek additional scientific, statistical, ethical, or other expert assessment;
• consult another independent editor;
• contact an institution, ethics body, funder, regulator, or other appropriate organization; or
• take other reasonable steps necessary to evaluate the reliability of the published work.

Authors should normally be given an opportunity to respond to substantive concerns before a final editorial action is taken, unless immediate action is necessary to protect readers, participants, confidentiality, legal rights, or the integrity of the scholarly record.

The existence of an allegation must not be treated as proof of misconduct.

4. Corrections

A correction should be issued when published information contains a material error or omission that requires amendment but does not invalidate 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 funding or competing-interest disclosures;
• incorrect references or other bibliographic information; or
• other errors that materially affect the accuracy or interpretation of the published record without substantially invalidating the principal findings.

The correction notice must clearly identify:

• the article being corrected;
• the nature of the error;
• the information being corrected; and
• the corrected information or appropriate clarification.

The notice must be publicly accessible and permanently linked to the original article.

The original article should also clearly indicate that a correction has been published.

Minor typographical, formatting, or stylistic errors that do not materially affect meaning, interpretation, citation, metadata, or scientific content 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 the author-submitted content.

AMG Transcend Association does not require journals to maintain these terms 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 published 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 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 original publication and the nature of the changes.

The corrected version must not silently replace the original published record in a manner that obscures the publication history.

Where republication follows retraction or another major editorial action, the relationship between the original article, relevant notice, and corrected version must be clearly identified.

7. Expressions of Concern

An Expression of Concern may be published when substantial questions exist about the reliability, integrity, ethical acceptability, or provenance of an article but the available evidence is insufficient to support a definitive correction or retraction.

An Expression of Concern may be appropriate where:

• a credible investigation 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;
• there are substantial unresolved questions regarding data, images, ethics, authorship, peer review, or other aspects of the publication; or
• 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 as reasonably possible without making unsupported allegations.

Where subsequent information resolves the matter, the journal should update the scholarly record through an appropriate correction, retraction, clarification, or other notice.

An Expression of Concern may remain part of the permanent record even after the matter has been resolved where its retention is necessary to preserve the history and transparency of the publication.

8. Retractions

An article should be retracted when the available evidence demonstrates that its findings, conclusions, provenance, 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, or research declarations affecting the integrity of the work; or
• another serious problem that makes the article materially unreliable.

Retraction may be appropriate whether the underlying problem resulted from misconduct or from serious honest error.

A finding of misconduct is therefore not required before an article can be retracted when the published findings are no longer sufficiently reliable.

9. Retraction Notices

A retraction notice must be clearly identified as a retraction and must identify the article to which it applies.

The notice should:

• state 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 requirements permit;
• distinguish, where reasonably possible, between confirmed findings and unresolved allegations;
• identify whether the retraction is initiated by the journal, authors, or other responsible party where relevant;
• avoid defamatory, speculative, or unsupported statements; and
• remain freely and permanently accessible.

Retraction notices must be linked to the retracted article, and the retracted article must clearly link to the retraction notice.

Where appropriate, relevant indexing, DOI, metadata, and archiving services should be updated to reflect the retracted status of the article.

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 or silently replaced.

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.

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, and other parties to understand the publication history and the basis for subsequent editorial action.

Retraction therefore corrects the scholarly record by clearly changing the status of the article rather than by erasing the existence of the publication.

11. Exceptional Removal or Suppression of Published Content

Complete removal or suppression of 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, or safety problem that cannot be adequately addressed through ordinary post-publication notices.

Examples may include:

• a binding legal requirement or court order;
• 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; or
• another exceptional circumstance requiring restriction of public access.

Where removal or suppression is necessary, the bibliographic record and an explanatory notice should remain available where legally and ethically permissible.

The reason for the action should be stated transparently to the extent possible.

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 labeling part of the article as retracted.

Where the affected material cannot be adequately corrected without creating uncertainty regarding the reliability 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 integrity and interpretability of the published work.

13. Authorship, Disclosure, and Metadata Corrections

Not every post-publication change affects the scientific validity of an article.

Corrections concerning authorship, affiliations, contributor roles, funding, competing interests, ethical 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 competing interests must be assessed in accordance with the Conflict of Interest and Competing Interests policy.

A correction to transparency or metadata does not imply that the scientific findings are invalid unless the underlying issue raises additional concerns about the reliability or integrity of the work.

14. Institutional Investigations and Editorial Action

Journals may seek information from institutions, ethics committees, funders, regulators, or other bodies where a concern requires investigative authority or evidence that is not reasonably available to the journal.

The journal is responsible for determining the appropriate 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 wait for completion of an institutional 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 the available findings affect the reliability, interpretation, 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.

Unanimous author agreement is not required for a correction, Expression of Concern, or retraction where the journal determines that action is necessary to maintain an accurate 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 need to be informed promptly of a significant reliability, ethical, privacy, or safety concern.

Appeals must be assessed independently from inappropriate commercial, institutional, reputational, or personal influence.

16. Permanence, Linking, and Discoverability of Notices

Formal corrections, Expressions of Concern, and retractions must form part of the permanent publication record.

Where technically applicable, notices should:

• have their own identifiable publication record;
• include appropriate bibliographic information;
• identify clearly the affected article;
• be linked to the affected article;
• be linked from the affected article;
• remain publicly accessible;
• be reflected appropriately in journal metadata; and
• be communicated to relevant indexing, DOI, archiving, or repository services where updates are supported.

Notices should be sufficiently prominent to prevent readers from reasonably overlooking the corrected, questioned, or retracted status of the article.

Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and retractions must not be hidden, removed, or made less visible for reputational or commercial reasons.

17. Proportionality of Editorial Action

The form of post-publication action must correspond to the effect of the problem on the published record.

As a general principle:

• a Correction is appropriate where the article remains reliable but requires material amendment;
• an Expression of Concern is appropriate where serious uncertainty exists and readers need to be informed while the matter remains unresolved; and
• 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 author’s conduct and the reliability of an article are related but distinct questions.

An honest error may require retraction if it invalidates the work, while misconduct that does not materially affect a particular publication may require another form of response.

Editorial action must therefore focus primarily on maintaining the accuracy and reliability 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;
• Human and Animal Research Ethics;
• Informed Consent and Clinical Trials;
• Authorship and Contributor Responsibilities;
• Conflict of Interest and Competing Interests;
• AI and Generative Tools;
• Editorial Independence and Governance; and
• Complaints and Appeals.

Individual journals may maintain additional procedures for implementing corrections, Expressions of Concern, retractions, and other post-publication notices consistent with these principles.