Correction, Withdrawal, and Retraction

Last Updated: April 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.58920/etflin.crossmark.policy

ETFLIN is dedicated to maintaining the permanent integrity and accuracy of the scholarly record. Our commitment to editorial quality is supported by the Crossmark service, a standard developed by Crossref that allows readers to quickly verify the current status of a document. Through the Crossmark system, we ensure that any updates, corrections, or retractions are promptly recorded and visible to the scientific community.

Corrections and Retractions

In the event that significant errors are identified post-publication, we act decisively to maintain transparency. Corrections are issued promptly for genuine errors with a clear explanation, often utilizing footnotes or dedicated correction notices to ensure updated information reaches all stakeholders.

Retractions, however, are reserved for the most serious cases, such as significant research errors, plagiarism, or professional misconduct. In such instances, the retraction notice will provide a detailed rationale, and authors are typically granted the opportunity to respond before final dissemination.

Paper Withdrawal and Ethics

ETFLIN values the integrity of the scholarly record and the labor of our editorial board. We recognize that science is an evolving process and that legitimate reasons for withdrawal exist. However, withdrawals based on career opportunism or ethical bypasses will result in administrative sanctions.

Classification of Withdrawal Reasons

The Editor-in-Chief will categorize withdrawal requests into the following levels to determine the appropriate course of action:

Level 1: Justified (No Penalty)

Scientific Discovery: The authors discover a fundamental error in their data, methodology, or analysis post-submission that invalidates the findings.

Unresolved Authorship Dispute: A legitimate disagreement regarding contribution that cannot be resolved through mediation.

Institutional Request: A formal request from the authors' university or funding body based on newly discovered compliance issues.

Level 2: Low-Moderate (Maximum 2-Year Suspension)

Redundant Submission: Withdrawing because the author realized the work was already published elsewhere or is too similar to another of their papers.

Process Dissatisfaction: Withdrawing due to impatience with the peer-review timeline (provided the journal is within its stated turnaround times).

Lack of Resources: Withdrawing because the authors can no longer pay the Article Processing Charge (APC) after previously agreeing to it.

Level 3: Severe (Lifetime Ban)

Journal Shopping: Withdrawing specifically because the journal's ranking, indexing, or Impact Factor changed during the review process.

Feedback Exploitation: Withdrawing after receiving comprehensive peer-review comments to "upgrade" the paper for a higher-tier journal using ETFLIN's resources.

Ethical Concealment: Attempting to withdraw a paper once the Editorial Board has raised questions about data fabrication, plagiarism, or lack of IRB approval.