Correction, Withdrawal, and Retraction
Last Updated: October 2026
Policy DOI: https://doi.org/10.58920/etflin.crossmark.policy
ETFLIN is committed to maintaining the accuracy, transparency, and integrity of the scholarly record. Publication does not prevent an article from being corrected or subject to further editorial action when material errors, ethical concerns, or other issues affecting the published record are identified.
This policy establishes the procedures for correcting published articles, withdrawing manuscripts before publication, retracting unreliable publications, issuing expressions of concern, and handling exceptional cases in which removal of published content may be necessary.
ETFLIN follows recognized publication ethics principles, including the COPE Retraction Guidelines, the ICMJE Recommendations on Corrections and Version Control, and applicable Crossref update practices.
The primary purpose of post-publication action is to ensure that readers can identify the current status of a publication and distinguish reliable findings from content that has been corrected, questioned, or retracted. Such action is intended to protect the scholarly record rather than automatically punish the authors.
General Principles
ETFLIN distinguishes between corrections, withdrawals, retractions, expressions of concern, and exceptional removals. Each action serves a different purpose and must be selected according to the nature of the problem, the reliability of the affected findings, the available evidence, and the stage of publication.
Honest mistakes, incomplete declarations, disagreements about interpretation, and suspected research misconduct must not automatically receive the same treatment. The editorial response should be proportionate to the issue and based on a reasonable assessment of the evidence.
Authors are expected to cooperate in correcting the scholarly record when a genuine error is identified. At the same time, ETFLIN retains editorial responsibility for deciding whether a formal correction, expression of concern, retraction, or other action is necessary. An author's refusal to agree with an editorial assessment does not prevent the journal from taking appropriate action when the available evidence justifies it.
Editorial actions must be documented transparently. Published notices should explain the nature and significance of the change, identify the affected article, and remain connected to the relevant publication records.
The existence of a correction or retraction does not, by itself, establish deliberate misconduct. The editorial outcome must reflect the evidence concerning the publication's reliability and the nature of the identified problem.
Corrections to Published Articles
Purpose and Scope of Corrections
A correction is issued when an error in a published article requires formal amendment but does not justify retracting the article in its entirety.
Corrections may address factual, bibliographic, methodological, analytical, or other errors that can be remedied without making the overall findings and conclusions unreliable. Examples may include incorrect numerical values, mislabeled figures or tables, missing acknowledgments, inaccurate funding information, author identification errors, and other material inaccuracies.
The significance of an error depends on its effect on the interpretation of the article. A typographical error that does not change meaning may not require a formal correction notice, whereas an incorrect value, misleading figure, or omitted disclosure may require formal action depending on its consequences.
ETFLIN may correct errors identified by authors, readers, editors, reviewers, institutions, or other parties. A correction may be initiated at any time after publication when sufficient information establishes that a change is warranted.
Assessment of Correction Requests
Requests for correction must identify the affected article and describe the error, its location, the proposed amendment, and the reason the change is necessary. Supporting evidence should be provided where appropriate.
The editorial office will assess whether the proposed correction is justified and whether it affects the article's findings, interpretation, attribution, or other material information.
The journal may ask the authors for clarification, supporting data, revised files, or confirmation from relevant co-authors. Where the request concerns an author name, authorship, funding declaration, research ethics statement, or other information that requires additional verification, appropriate supporting documentation may be requested.
The editor will determine whether the issue can be resolved through a formal correction, a limited production amendment, an expression of concern, or a retraction assessment.
Minor spelling, formatting, or layout errors that do not affect meaning, attribution, or interpretation may be corrected directly where appropriate. Such changes must not be used to conceal a substantive alteration to the published work.
Formal Correction Notices
When a formal correction is required, ETFLIN will publish a correction notice that identifies the original article and explains the error and the amendment made.
The notice should include, as applicable:
The title and complete citation of the original article, including its DOI.
The nature and location of the error.
The corrected information or a clear description of the change.
An explanation of whether the correction affects the interpretation, results, or conclusions of the article.
The publication date of the correction notice and other relevant bibliographic information.
Correction notices must be clearly labeled and linked to the original article. The original article should also link to the correction so that readers can discover the amendment when consulting either record.
Where supported by the publishing infrastructure, the correction notice should receive its own DOI and appropriate update metadata. Relevant publication records should be updated in Crossref and Crossmark where applicable.
This approach follows the Crossref guidance on versioning and publication updates, which recommends separate notices for editorially significant changes so that the original record and the amendment remain distinguishable.
Corrected Article Versions
Where a correction affects the article's content, ETFLIN may update the relevant HTML, PDF, or other publication files as necessary. The article should indicate that a correction has been made and identify the associated correction notice.
Previous versions should remain traceable in accordance with the journal's archival arrangements. The version presented as current must not obscure the existence or nature of a material earlier version.
Authors and readers should be able to identify which version contains the correction and understand what was changed. References to the article should direct readers to the current version while preserving the publication history.
ETFLIN may request a new version of the article when necessary to implement the correction accurately. The nature and date of the update must be documented.
Corrections and Research Reliability
If an error affects only a limited part of an article and the remaining findings are sufficiently reliable, a correction may be more appropriate than a retraction.
If the error is so extensive that the principal results or conclusions can no longer be relied upon, the editor must assess whether retraction is warranted. The possibility of correcting part of the article does not automatically justify retaining findings that are fundamentally unreliable.
In cases of honest error where substantial changes are necessary, ETFLIN may consider a more extensive correction or a retraction with republication when the revised work can be independently assessed and the integrity of the scholarly record can be maintained. Such cases require careful editorial scrutiny rather than an automatic replacement of the article.
These principles follow the ICMJE guidance on corrections and version control.
Withdrawal of Manuscripts Before Publication
Definition of Withdrawal
Withdrawal applies to a manuscript that has not yet been formally published as a Version of Record. It allows authors to discontinue editorial consideration before the work becomes part of the published scholarly record.
A manuscript may be withdrawn at different stages, including before external peer review, during peer review, after a revision request, or after acceptance but before formal publication. The stage of the process may affect the administrative steps required, but it does not automatically determine whether a request is legitimate.
Once an article has been formally published online as the Version of Record, including online publication before assignment to a journal issue, it is part of the published scholarly record. Requests to remove or discontinue that record must normally be assessed under the correction, retraction, or exceptional removal provisions of this policy rather than treated as an ordinary manuscript withdrawal.
Submission of a Withdrawal Request
A withdrawal request must be submitted in writing by the corresponding author through the journal's official communication channel.
The request must identify the manuscript and provide a clear explanation of the reason for withdrawal. ETFLIN may request written confirmation from all co-authors that they are aware of and agree with the request, particularly when there are multiple authors, an authorship dispute, or other circumstances that require verification.
Where a co-author objects to withdrawal or the authors disagree about the request, the journal may pause the administrative process while the matter is clarified. The journal may seek relevant institutional guidance where necessary but does not ordinarily act as the final arbiter of disputed individual contributions.
A manuscript is not considered formally withdrawn until the editorial office issues written confirmation. Until confirmation has been provided, the manuscript remains subject to the applicable submission and editorial procedures.
After withdrawal is confirmed, the authors may submit the work elsewhere, subject to any outstanding legal, ethical, contractual, or research-integrity matters that independently affect the manuscript.
Legitimate Reasons for Withdrawal
Authors may have legitimate reasons to withdraw a manuscript before publication. These may include the discovery of a material scientific error, an unresolved authorship problem, a newly identified ethical or legal restriction, a material error in the submitted files, or another substantiated circumstance that prevents the work from proceeding appropriately.
A request based on a scientific error must be assessed on its merits. Authors should explain the nature of the problem and whether the error affects the study's findings, interpretation, or conclusions. Withdrawal is not intended to conceal a serious problem; the journal may need to assess whether further action is warranted to protect the integrity of the research record.
A change in the authors' publication plans or circumstances may also lead to a withdrawal request. The journal will assess such requests in the context of the manuscript's stage, the information provided, and any relevant obligations.
ETFLIN does not automatically treat every withdrawal as misconduct, nor does it require authors to continue with publication merely because substantial editorial work has already been undertaken.
Withdrawal After Peer Review or Acceptance
Withdrawal requests made after external peer review, after acceptance, or during production may require additional clarification because the manuscript has progressed further through the editorial process.
The journal may ask the authors to explain the circumstances and confirm that all relevant authors understand the request. Where a legitimate reason is established, the journal may approve withdrawal subject to the necessary administrative steps.
Acceptance does not, by itself, make a manuscript a published article. A manuscript that has been accepted but has not been formally published may still be withdrawn through the applicable procedure.
Where the article has already been made publicly available as the Version of Record, however, withdrawal is not ordinarily appropriate. The editor must instead consider the formal post-publication procedures under this policy.
Withdrawal Involving Potential Research Integrity Concerns
A withdrawal request does not prevent ETFLIN from assessing a credible concern about research integrity.
If concerns about possible fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, unethical research, duplicate publication, manipulated images, authorship misrepresentation, or other serious issues arise before withdrawal is completed, the journal may request clarification and relevant supporting documentation.
Where appropriate, ETFLIN may continue a confidential assessment or refer the matter to the relevant institution, ethics committee, funder, or other competent authority. The fact that an author has requested withdrawal does not automatically establish misconduct, but it also does not require the journal to disregard credible evidence of a problem.
The journal must distinguish a legitimate effort to withdraw an unreliable manuscript from an attempt to prevent a reasonable integrity assessment. Any action beyond ordinary withdrawal procedures must be supported by the available evidence and handled under the applicable editorial and publication ethics procedures.
Retraction of Published Articles
Purpose of Retraction
Retraction is a formal action used to identify a published article whose findings, conclusions, or other material content can no longer be relied upon, or where another serious publication-related reason requires the article to be marked as retracted.
Retraction is intended to correct the scholarly record and warn readers that the article should not be relied upon as a valid source of the affected findings. It is not automatically a disciplinary punishment and does not, by itself, establish that every author acted deliberately or dishonestly.
ETFLIN follows the COPE Retraction Guidelines, which emphasize the need to assess the reliability of the work, communicate the reason for retraction, and maintain a transparent connection between the retraction notice and the original article.
Grounds for Retraction
Retraction may be warranted when the available evidence establishes that the article's reliability or publication integrity has been materially compromised. Relevant circumstances may include:
Substantial errors in data, methods, analysis, or interpretation that invalidate the principal results or conclusions.
Fabrication or falsification of data, deceptive image manipulation, or other serious research misconduct.
Plagiarism or other substantial unattributed appropriation of material that undermines the integrity of the publication.
Redundant or duplicate publication that materially misrepresents the originality or provenance of the published work.
Serious ethical violations, including research conducted without required approval or consent where the problem affects the legitimacy of the work.
Manipulation or compromise of the peer-review process that materially undermines confidence in the publication.
Unauthorized use of data or materials, or other significant legal or ethical violations affecting the article.
Failure to disclose a major competing interest where the undisclosed relationship materially affected the interpretation, recommendation, or reliability of the work.
Other circumstances in which the editor concludes, on the available evidence, that the published work should no longer be relied upon.
This list is not exhaustive. Retraction decisions must be based on the specific circumstances, evidence, and consequences for the scholarly record.
A disputed authorship arrangement does not automatically justify retraction when the findings remain reliable. Similarly, the existence of an error does not automatically require retraction if a transparent correction can adequately resolve it.
Assessment and Decision to Retract
ETFLIN may begin a retraction assessment following concerns raised by authors, readers, reviewers, editors, institutions, funders, or other parties.
The editor will evaluate the available evidence, the significance of the alleged problem, the reliability of the data and conclusions, and any relevant institutional findings. The journal may request original data, research records, ethics documentation, explanations from the authors, or other information necessary to reach a reasoned decision.
Where an institutional investigation is underway, ETFLIN may consider issuing an expression of concern while awaiting further information. However, the journal need not postpone a necessary retraction when the available evidence is already sufficient to establish that the publication is unreliable.
The editor or Editor-in-Chief retains responsibility for the final editorial decision. Authors will ordinarily be given an opportunity to respond to the concerns and proposed action, subject to reasonable deadlines and the need to protect the integrity of an ongoing investigation.
A lack of agreement among the authors does not necessarily prevent retraction if the editor determines that the publication must be marked as unreliable. Likewise, an author's request for retraction does not automatically establish that the article must be retracted; the editor must assess the evidence and the appropriate editorial action.
Retraction Notice
A retraction notice must be clearly labeled and must identify the retracted article through its title, authors, journal citation, and DOI or other persistent identifier.
The notice must explain the reason for retraction with sufficient specificity for readers to understand which aspects of the article are unreliable or why the article is being retracted. Where relevant and supported by the findings of an investigation, the notice should clarify whether the reason concerns unreliable data, methodological problems, redundant publication, ethical issues, or another material concern.
The notice should identify who is issuing the retraction, such as the authors, the editor, or the journal. Where some authors disagree with the retraction or decline to cooperate, the notice may state this fact when relevant, without turning the notice into an unsupported allegation of individual culpability.
The retraction notice must be published promptly once the decision has been made and the notice is ready. It should receive its own DOI where supported by the publishing infrastructure and must be linked to the original article. The original article must also link to the retraction notice.
Retraction notices must not be ambiguous, hidden within unrelated content, or presented solely as a general editorial announcement. They should remain identifiable in the journal's content listings and bibliographic records so that readers and indexing services can recognize the retraction.
Status and Accessibility of Retracted Articles
Retracted articles will ordinarily remain accessible on the journal website with a clear and prominent indication of their retracted status. The HTML page, PDF, abstract, and other relevant formats should clearly identify the article as retracted and provide a link to the retraction notice.
ETFLIN will not ordinarily remove a retracted article merely to prevent access to its findings or because the authors object to the publication of the retraction. Maintaining the historical record allows readers to understand what was published and why its reliability was subsequently questioned.
Where the publishing infrastructure supports the relevant metadata, the retraction relationship should be registered with Crossref and reflected in Crossmark. Updates must be made as promptly as reasonably possible to help readers discover the current status of the article.
This practice follows the ICMJE guidance on scientific misconduct and retraction and Crossref's Crossmark update requirements.
Partial Corrections and Retracted Components
Where a clearly identifiable part of an article is incorrect but the principal findings remain reliable, a correction is generally preferable to retracting the entire article.
ETFLIN will assess whether the affected content can be corrected transparently and whether readers can continue to interpret the remaining work reliably.
Partial retraction or other specialized update mechanisms may be considered only where appropriate to the nature of the publication and supported by the available publishing infrastructure. The journal must avoid creating ambiguity about which findings remain reliable.
Where it is not possible to distinguish the reliable and unreliable components adequately, the editor may determine that full retraction is necessary.
Expressions of Concern
Purpose and Circumstances
An Expression of Concern is a formal notice used to alert readers to a material concern about a published article when the available evidence does not yet support a final editorial determination or when a relevant investigation remains unresolved.
An expression of concern may be appropriate when credible questions arise regarding the reliability of data, ethical compliance, research conduct, authorship, or other matters that could materially affect the interpretation of the article, but further information is needed before the appropriate action can be determined.
It may also be considered when an institutional investigation is delayed, an institution does not provide sufficient information, or the available evidence remains inconclusive despite reasonable efforts to clarify the matter.
An expression of concern is not a finding of misconduct and must not be presented as though the allegations have been proven. It serves to inform readers that the article's status is under assessment.
Publication and Review of an Expression of Concern
The notice should identify the article and describe the reason for concern with sufficient clarity to explain why readers should exercise caution. The wording must be factual, proportionate, and consistent with the evidence available at the time of publication.
The original authors should ordinarily be informed of the intended notice and given a reasonable opportunity to respond, subject to the circumstances and the need to protect an ongoing investigation.
The expression of concern must be linked to the original article and included in the relevant publication records. Where supported by the publishing infrastructure, its metadata should be registered and maintained through the applicable Crossref or Crossmark arrangements.
The notice will remain associated with the article while the relevant concern is unresolved. It should not remain indefinitely without review when material new information or an investigation outcome becomes available.
Resolution of an Expression of Concern
Once the relevant assessment has been completed, ETFLIN will review whether the expression of concern should be followed by a correction, retraction, a further explanatory notice, or another appropriate outcome.
If the findings remain reliable and the concern has been resolved, the journal may issue an explanatory or closing notice where appropriate. If a material error is established but can be corrected, the journal may publish a correction. If the article is found to be unreliable or otherwise meets the grounds for retraction, the relevant retraction procedure will apply.
An expression of concern must not be treated as a substitute for a final editorial decision when sufficient evidence is available to resolve the matter.
This approach reflects the ICMJE recommendations on expressions of concern and the relevant COPE guidance on retractions and post-publication concerns.
Exceptional Removal of Published Content
Removal of a published article is an exceptional measure and is distinct from correction, withdrawal of an unpublished manuscript, or retraction.
Removal may be considered when continued public availability would create a serious legal, privacy, confidentiality, or safety problem that cannot be adequately addressed through a correction, redaction, or retraction notice. Relevant circumstances may include a binding legal requirement, a serious risk arising from the disclosure of protected personal information, or another exceptional situation requiring removal or restriction.
A request for removal must be supported by a clear explanation and relevant documentation where appropriate. ETFLIN will assess the legal and ethical implications, the seriousness of the risk, available alternatives, and the importance of preserving the scholarly record.
Removal will not ordinarily be granted solely because an author regrets publication, disagrees with the conclusions, wishes to submit the work elsewhere, faces reputational concerns, or prefers that an unreliable article no longer be publicly visible.
Where content must be removed or access must be restricted, ETFLIN will seek to preserve a public bibliographic record or explanatory notice to the extent legally and ethically permissible. The record should identify that content has been removed or restricted and explain the action in general terms where possible, without disclosing protected information.
Relevant metadata and update records should be maintained or amended as appropriate so that readers and indexing services are not misled into believing that the article remains available in its original form.
Withdrawal, Corrections, and Retractions Involving Multiple Journals
Where concerns involve duplicate publication, overlapping manuscripts, unauthorized reuse, or related activity across more than one journal, ETFLIN may communicate with the other relevant publishers or institutions as appropriate.
The relevant journals may need to establish publication dates, the extent of overlap, the origin of the data or material, and the applicable publication agreements before deciding which action is appropriate.
Retraction or another editorial notice must identify the relevant reason and must be proportionate to the evidence. Duplicate publication does not automatically mean that every version should be retracted in the same way; the circumstances, publication sequence, reliability of the work, and applicable rights must be assessed.
Authors must cooperate with reasonable requests for clarification. The presence of a related article elsewhere does not automatically establish misconduct, but deliberate concealment of redundant publication or submission of materially overlapping work without appropriate disclosure may require further assessment.
Author and Institutional Communication
ETFLIN seeks to handle correction, withdrawal, retraction, and removal matters fairly, transparently, and with appropriate confidentiality.
Where a concern is raised, the editorial office may contact the corresponding author and relevant co-authors to request clarification, supporting records, or confirmation of a proposed amendment.
The journal may contact a research institution, ethics committee, funder, or another competent authority when institutional information is necessary to assess the matter or when a possible breach of research integrity requires further investigation.
Communication should be proportionate to the concern and should avoid unsupported allegations. Where possible, parties should be informed of the proposed editorial action and given a reasonable opportunity to respond before the final decision is communicated.
However, the need to obtain a response does not automatically prevent ETFLIN from issuing a necessary correction, expression of concern, or retraction when the evidence supports action and delay could mislead readers or compromise the scholarly record.
The editor retains responsibility for the editorial decision, even when an institution or other party provides information or recommendations.
Proportionality and Administrative Measures
Withdrawal requests and post-publication actions must be assessed according to the actual circumstances rather than through an automatic penalty system based solely on the stage of the manuscript or the stated reason for withdrawal.
A legitimate withdrawal, an honest error, an inability to continue a study, an unresolved authorship matter, or a disagreement with the journal's editorial assessment does not automatically constitute misconduct.
If evidence indicates deliberate deception, repeated abuse of the submission process, falsified documentation, duplicate submission contrary to declared requirements, or an attempt to obstruct a legitimate research-integrity assessment, ETFLIN may take proportionate administrative action under its applicable procedures.
Any restriction on future submissions or other publishing privileges must be supported by the available evidence, appropriate consideration of the parties' explanations, and a reasoned editorial determination. The seriousness and duration of any restriction must reflect the nature of the established conduct and the relevant circumstances.
ETFLIN does not impose an automatic lifetime ban solely because an author requests withdrawal, changes publication plans, disagrees with a decision, or cannot proceed with publication for a legitimate reason.
Where misconduct is established or serious concerns remain, further action may be taken under the journal's applicable publication ethics and editorial procedures. The procedures should preserve fairness and allow the relevant parties to raise a formal complaint or appeal where appropriate.
Appeals and Complaints
Authors may request reconsideration of a decision under this policy when they believe that the decision involved a material factual error, a procedural irregularity, or an inadequate consideration of relevant evidence.
Appeals and complaints must be submitted through ETFLIN's Appeals and Complaints Policy. An appeal must identify the disputed decision, explain the grounds for reconsideration, and provide any relevant supporting information.
Where practicable, reconsideration should be conducted by an individual who was not directly responsible for the original decision and who has no relevant competing interest.
An appeal does not automatically suspend a necessary correction or retraction, guarantee reversal of the original decision, or establish that the editorial process was improper. The journal will evaluate the appeal in accordance with the applicable procedure and communicate the outcome to the relevant parties.
Documentation, Metadata, and Archiving
ETFLIN will maintain records of formal corrections, withdrawals, retractions, expressions of concern, and exceptional removals as appropriate to the nature of the action and applicable retention requirements.
Formal notices must remain linked to the relevant article records so that readers can understand the current publication status and trace the history of material changes.
Where supported by the publishing infrastructure, the relevant update metadata should be registered with Crossref and reflected through Crossmark. The Crossmark system provides readers with a way to identify significant updates, but it does not replace the obligation to publish an adequate correction, retraction, or other notice.
ETFLIN will make reasonable efforts to ensure that the HTML version, PDF, abstract record, DOI metadata, and other relevant publication records accurately reflect the status of the article.
The preservation of article versions and associated notices is governed by ETFLIN's Archiving Policy.
Policy Review
ETFLIN will periodically review this policy to maintain consistency with recognized publication ethics guidance, Crossref update practices, and developments in scholarly publishing.
The journal may revise its procedures when necessary to improve transparency, protect the scholarly record, and ensure the fair handling of corrections, withdrawals, retractions, expressions of concern, and exceptional removals.
Questions concerning the interpretation or implementation of this policy may be directed to halo@etflin.com.