Retraction policy

The infringement of the legal limitations of the publisher, copyright holder or author(s), the violation of professional ethical codes and research misconduct, such as multiple submissions, duplicate or overlapping publication, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data and data fabrication, honest errors reported by the authors (for example, errors due to the mixing up of samples or use of a scientific tool or equipment that is found subsequently to be faulty), unethical research or any major misconduct require retraction of an article. Occasionally a retraction can be used to correct errors in submission or publication. The main reason for withdrawal or retraction is to correct the mistake while preserving the integrity of science; it is not to punish the author.

For any retracted article, the reason for retraction and who is instigating the retraction will be clearly stated in the Retraction notice. Standards for dealing with retractions have been developed by a number of library and scholarly bodies, and this practice has been adopted for article retraction by Journal of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences: in the electronic version of the retraction note, a link is made to the original article. In the electronic version of the original article, a link is made to the retraction note where it is clearly stated that the article has been retracted. The original article is retained unchanged, save for a watermark on the PDF indicating on each page that it is “retracted.”

Retraction guidelines

COPE's Retraction guidelines for advice and guidance for editors: when should a retraction be considered, what to include in a notice, how quickly to issue a retraction, who should issue a retraction, and what to do when there is inconclusive evidence of a retraction.

COPE Guidelines are formal COPE policy and are intended to advise editors and publishers on expected publication ethics practice.

Key points

Editors should consider retracting a publication if: They have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of major error (eg, miscalculation or experimental error), or as a result of fabrication (eg, of data) or falsification (eg, image manipulation)

It constitutes plagiarism

The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper attribution to previous sources or disclosure to the editor, permission to republish, or justification (ie, cases of redundant publication)

It contains material or data without authorisation for use

Copyright has been infringed or there is some other serious legal issue (eg, libel, privacy)

It reports unethical research

It has been published solely on the basis of a compromised or manipulated peer review process

The author(s) failed to disclose a major competing interest (a.k.a. conflict of interest) that, in the view of the editor, would have unduly affected interpretations of the work or recommendations by editors and peer reviewers.

Notices of retraction should: Be linked to the retracted article wherever possible (ie, in all online versions)

Clearly identify the retracted article (eg, by including the title and authors in the retraction heading or citing the retracted article)

Be clearly identified as a retraction (ie, distinct from other types of correction or comment)

Be published promptly to minimise harmful effects

Be freely available to all readers (ie, not behind access barriers or available only to subscribers)

State who is retracting the article

State the reason(s) for retraction

Be objective, factual and avoid inflammatory language

Retractions are not usually appropriate if: The authorship is disputed but there is no reason to doubt the validity of the findings

The main findings of the work are still reliable and correction could sufficiently address errors or concerns

An editor has inconclusive evidence to support retraction, or is awaiting additional information such as from an institutional investigation See also Expressions of Concern Forum discussion.

Author conflicts of interest have been reported to the journal after publication, but in the editor’s view these are not likely to have influenced interpretations or recommendations or the conclusions of the article.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4

Source:https://publicationethics.org/