Corrections and Retractions Policy

Emergent Life Sciences Research (ELSR) is committed to maintaining the accuracy, reliability, transparency, and integrity of the published scientific record.

When errors, omissions, ethical concerns, or other significant issues are identified after publication, ELSR may take appropriate post-publication action.

Depending on the nature and seriousness of the matter, such action may include publication of a Correction, Retraction, Expression of Concern, or other appropriate editorial notice.

Post-publication actions are intended to provide readers with clear and accurate information regarding the status of published work and to preserve the integrity of the scholarly record.

 

1. General Principle

Publication of an article does not prevent subsequent editorial action when a significant concern is identified.

ELSR may examine concerns relating to published articles regardless of:

• When the article was published.
• Whether the concern was raised by an author.
• Whether the concern was raised by a reader.
• Whether the concern was identified by an Editor or reviewer.
• Whether the concern was raised by an institution or other organization.
• Whether the concern was identified through post-publication review or editorial examination.

Post-publication action will depend on the nature, reliability, seriousness, and potential effect of the concern on the published scientific record.

ELSR will seek to distinguish between honest error and potential research or publication misconduct.

 

2. Purpose of Post-Publication Notices

Post-publication notices are used to inform readers when information concerning a published article requires clarification or formal editorial action.

The purpose of such notices may include:

• Correcting significant errors.
• Clarifying inaccurate information.
• Identifying concerns regarding the reliability of published findings.
• Informing readers of an ongoing investigation.
• Correcting authorship or publication information.
• Withdrawing unreliable findings from the scientific record.
• Preserving transparency regarding editorial actions.

Post-publication notices should be clear, accessible, and appropriately linked to the relevant article.

 

3. Minor Errors

Minor errors that do not materially affect the scientific content, interpretation, reliability, or understanding of an article may not require a formal Correction notice.

Examples may include:

• Minor typographical errors.
• Minor grammatical errors.
• Inconsequential formatting errors.
• Minor layout problems.
• Small presentation errors that do not affect meaning.

Where technically appropriate, minor production errors may be corrected by the journal.

ELSR will consider whether a formal notice is necessary based on the significance of the error and the need to preserve transparency in the Version of Record.

Substantive scientific changes should not be treated as minor corrections.

 

4. Corrections

A formal Correction may be published when an error or omission affects part of a published article but does not invalidate the article's principal findings or conclusions.

A Correction may be considered for issues including:

• Incorrect data values.
• Errors in a table.
• Errors in a figure.
• Incorrect figure labels.
• Statistical reporting errors.
• Methodological clarification.
• Incorrect author affiliation.
• Incorrect funding information.
• Incorrect conflict-of-interest information.
• Errors in a Data Availability Statement.
• Incorrect accession numbers or repository information.
• Significant reference errors.
• Other material errors that require formal clarification.

The nature and effect of the error will be assessed before a Correction is issued.

 

5. Author-Initiated Corrections

Authors should inform the Editorial Office promptly when they identify a significant error in their published article.

The corresponding author should provide:

• The article title.
• DOI or other article identification.
• A clear description of the error.
• The location of the error in the article.
• The correct information.
• An explanation of whether the error affects the results, interpretation, or conclusions.

The Editorial Office may request additional information or supporting documentation.

Authors should not delay reporting a significant error because of concern regarding reputational consequences.

Prompt and transparent correction of honest errors is an important part of responsible scientific publishing.

 

6. Editorial Assessment of Correction Requests

ELSR will assess whether the requested change requires:

• No formal action.
• A minor technical correction.
• A formal Correction.
• Further editorial assessment.
• An Expression of Concern.
• Retraction.

The Editorial Office may consult:

• The authors.
• Relevant Editors.
• Independent scientific experts.
• Reviewers.
• The authors' institution.
• Other relevant organizations or authorities.

The appropriate process will depend on the nature and seriousness of the issue.

 

7. Correction Notices

A formal Correction notice should clearly identify the article concerned.

Where applicable, the notice should include:

• The title of the original article.
• Author information.
• Citation details.
• DOI of the original article.
• Description of the error.
• Corrected information.
• Clarification of whether the correction affects the findings or conclusions.

The Correction notice should be published as a separate, identifiable publication record where appropriate.

The original article and Correction notice should be linked.

 

8. Changes to the Published Article

Where a formal Correction is issued, ELSR may update the online article when technically appropriate.

Any substantive update should be transparent.

The journal should avoid silently altering substantive scientific content in the Version of Record.

Where the published article is updated, readers should be able to identify that a formal correction has occurred.

The Correction notice should remain part of the published scholarly record.

 

9. Author Name and Affiliation Corrections

ELSR may consider requests to correct author names or affiliations after publication.

Requests should be evaluated according to the nature of the correction.

Examples may include:

• Spelling errors.
• Incorrect institutional information.
• Incorrect author identifiers.
• Production errors.
• Other legitimate author-information corrections.

A change to the author list is different from correction of an author name or affiliation.

Requests involving addition, removal, or rearrangement of authors are handled according to the ELSR Authorship Policy.

 

10. Authorship Changes After Publication

Requests to add or remove an author after publication require careful editorial assessment.

ELSR may request:

• An explanation for the proposed change.
• Written agreement from all authors.
• Confirmation from the corresponding author.
• A description of author contributions.
• Institutional information where a dispute exists.

ELSR will not normally resolve complex authorship disputes independently.

Where authors cannot agree, the matter may be referred to the relevant institution or other appropriate authority.

If an authorship change is approved, a formal post-publication notice may be issued.

 

11. Retractions

A published article may be retracted when its findings, data, reporting, or publication history are sufficiently unreliable or seriously compromised.

Retraction may be considered when there is evidence that:

• Findings are unreliable because of a major error.
• Findings are unreliable because of data fabrication.
• Findings are unreliable because of data falsification.
• Research data have been seriously manipulated.
• Scientific images have been inappropriately manipulated.
• The article contains substantial plagiarism.
• The article reports unethical research.
• The article has been published elsewhere without appropriate justification or disclosure.
• The publication process has been seriously compromised.
• Peer review has been manipulated.
• Authorship has been seriously misrepresented.
• Copyright infringement materially affects the article.
• The article contains seriously fabricated or unverifiable content.
• AI-generated or synthetic data have been misrepresented as genuine research data.
• A major undisclosed conflict of interest materially affects the reliability or interpretation of the work.
• Other serious circumstances make the article's principal findings or publication unreliable.

Retraction is intended to identify unreliable or seriously compromised literature.

It is not intended primarily as a punishment of authors.

 

12. Retraction for Honest Error

An article may require retraction even when no research misconduct has occurred.

For example, a major methodological error, analytical error, computational error, or experimental problem may invalidate the principal findings of an article.

Where an honest error makes the major conclusions unreliable, retraction may be necessary to protect the scientific record.

ELSR will seek to distinguish honest error from potential misconduct when assessing the circumstances of a retraction.

 

13. Partial Problems and Retraction

Not every error requires retraction.

Where a problem is limited to a specific part of an article and the principal findings remain reliable, a Correction may be more appropriate.

ELSR will consider:

• The extent of the affected material.
• Whether reliable and unreliable findings can be clearly distinguished.
• Whether the principal conclusions remain valid.
• Whether correction can adequately address the concern.
• Whether readers could be misled if the article remains unchanged.

Retraction will normally be considered when the reliability or integrity of the article is fundamentally compromised.

 

14. Retraction Requests by Authors

Authors may request the retraction of their published article.

A retraction request should explain:

• The reason for the request.
• The nature of the problem.
• Whether the findings are affected.
• Whether all authors agree with the request.
• Any relevant institutional or investigative information.

An author request does not automatically result in retraction.

The Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Office will assess the available information and determine the appropriate editorial action.

Where authors disagree regarding retraction, the journal may proceed based on the reliability of the published article and the evidence available.

 

15. Retraction Without Author Agreement

ELSR may retract an article without the agreement of all authors when the available evidence demonstrates that retraction is necessary to protect the scientific record.

The absence of author agreement does not prevent appropriate editorial action.

Where authors disagree with the retraction, the Retraction notice may indicate that agreement was not obtained where such information is relevant and appropriate.

Editorial action will be based on the status and reliability of the published work.

 

16. Retraction Notices

A Retraction notice should clearly identify the retracted article.

The notice should, where appropriate:

• Identify the article title.
• Identify the authors.
• Provide citation information.
• Include the DOI of the article.
• State that the article has been retracted.
• Explain the reason for retraction.
• Identify who is retracting the article where relevant.
• Distinguish honest errors from misconduct where sufficiently established.
• Avoid defamatory or unsupported statements.

The reason for retraction should be described as clearly as reasonably possible.

The Retraction notice should be openly accessible.

 

17. Treatment of Retracted Articles

A retracted article should normally remain accessible as part of the scholarly record.

The article should be clearly identified as Retracted.

Where technically possible:

• The article webpage should display the retraction status.
• The article should be linked to the Retraction notice.
• The Retraction notice should link to the original article.
• The PDF should be clearly marked as retracted or accompanied by an appropriate retraction notice.

The original article should not normally be silently deleted.

Retention of the retracted article supports transparency and preserves the history of the scientific record.

 

18. Removal of Published Articles

Removal of a published article is different from retraction and will be considered only in exceptional circumstances.

Article removal may be considered when continued public availability creates a serious legal, privacy, confidentiality, or safety concern.

Examples may include:

• A legally enforceable requirement.
• Serious privacy violations.
• Publication of highly sensitive personal information.
• Serious confidentiality breaches.
• Material presents an immediate and substantial risk of harm.
• Other exceptional circumstances require removal.

Where an article is removed, ELSR should, where legally and technically possible, retain a notice explaining that the article has been removed.

Article removal should not be used merely to conceal publication errors or misconduct.

 

19. Expressions of Concern

ELSR may publish an Expression of Concern when serious questions have been raised regarding a published article, but the available information is insufficient to reach a final conclusion.

An Expression of Concern may be considered when:

• A significant investigation is ongoing.
• An institution is examining research-integrity concerns.
• Available evidence is inconclusive.
• Authors have not provided information necessary to resolve a serious concern.
• A substantial delay is expected before a final determination.
• There are serious concerns regarding data, images, ethics, authorship, or the publication process.

An Expression of Concern alerts readers to an unresolved issue.

It does not establish that misconduct has occurred.

 

20. Expression of Concern Notices

An Expression of Concern should clearly identify the article concerned.

The notice should describe the nature of the concern to the extent that this can be done responsibly.

The notice should avoid presenting unverified allegations as established facts.

The original article and Expression of Concern should be linked.

When the matter is resolved, ELSR may:

• Remove the concern through an appropriate follow-up notice.
• Publish a Correction.
• Retract the article.
• Publish another appropriate editorial notice.

The scholarly record should reflect the outcome of the assessment where appropriate.

 

21. Erratum

ELSR may use an Erratum or equivalent notice for significant errors introduced during the journal's production or publication process.

Such errors may include:

• Production errors.
• Typesetting errors.
• Incorrect figure placement.
• Errors introduced during copyediting.
• Publication metadata errors.
• Other journal-introduced errors.

Where the distinction between an author error and production error is not important for readers, ELSR may use the general term Correction.

The primary objective is to clearly correct the published record.

 

22. Duplicate and Redundant Publication

ELSR may take post-publication action when an article is found to substantially duplicate previously published work without appropriate disclosure or justification.

The Editorial Office will consider:

• The extent of overlap.
• Whether the same data are reused.
• Whether the previous publication was disclosed.
• Whether appropriate citation was provided.
• Whether the article contains a legitimate new scientific contribution.
• Whether readers were misled regarding the originality of the work.

Substantial undisclosed duplicate publication may result in retraction.

Related concerns are also assessed under the ELSR Plagiarism Policy and ELSR Publication Ethics Policy.

 

23. Data and Image Concerns

Concerns relating to published data or scientific images may result in post-publication assessment.

ELSR may request:

• Original data.
• Raw data.
• Original image files.
• Unprocessed images.
• Laboratory or analytical records.
• Statistical outputs.
• Relevant metadata.
• Other supporting information.

The journal's final Guide already permits the Editorial Office to request original data and original image files where integrity concerns arise.

Where a data or image concern can be corrected without affecting the principal findings, a Correction may be appropriate.

Where the reliability of the principal findings is seriously compromised, retraction may be considered.

 

24. Ethical Concerns

Post-publication action may be taken when significant ethical concerns are identified after publication.

Such concerns may include:

• Absence of required ethical approval.
• Misrepresentation of ethical approval.
• Serious informed-consent concerns.
• Serious participant confidentiality breaches.
• Unethical animal research.
• Serious violations involving biological materials.
• Other substantial ethical non-compliance.

The nature, seriousness, and effect of the concern on the research and published record will be considered.

ELSR may seek information from the authors' institution or an appropriate ethics body.

 

25. Plagiarism Identified After Publication

If potential plagiarism is identified after publication, ELSR may assess:

• The extent of copied material.
• The nature of the material.
• Whether appropriate citation was provided.
• Whether the copied content affects the originality of the article.
• Whether figures, tables, or data were reused improperly.
• Whether copyright concerns are involved.

Minor attribution problems may be addressed through correction where appropriate.

Substantial plagiarism may result in retraction.

The matter will also be considered under the ELSR Plagiarism Policy.

 

26. AI-Related Post-Publication Concerns

ELSR may take post-publication action when inappropriate or undisclosed AI use materially affects the integrity or reliability of a published article.

Concerns may include:

• Fabricated AI-generated references.
• Scientifically inaccurate AI-generated content.
• AI-generated data presented as genuine experimental data.
• Undisclosed synthetic data.
• Inappropriate AI modification of scientific images.
• AI-assisted fabrication or falsification.
• Serious misrepresentation of the role of AI in the research.

The use of AI alone does not justify correction or retraction.

Editorial action will depend on the effect of the AI-related issue on the accuracy, transparency, and reliability of the published work.

AI-related concerns are also considered under the ELSR AI and Generative AI Policy.

 

27. Institutional Investigations

ELSR may contact an author's institution or another appropriate organization when a concern requires investigation beyond the journal's capacity.

The journal may request information concerning:

• Research-integrity investigations.
• Ethical investigations.
• Data concerns.
• Authorship disputes.
• Institutional findings.
• Other relevant matters.

ELSR recognizes that journals and research institutions have different roles.

The journal is responsible for the published scientific record.

Institutions may be better positioned to investigate the conduct of researchers and examine original research records.

ELSR may consider institutional findings when determining editorial action but retains responsibility for decisions concerning the journal's published content.

 

28. Confidentiality During an Investigation

ELSR will seek to handle post-publication concerns with appropriate confidentiality.

Information may be shared with:

• Relevant Editors.
• Authors.
• Reviewers or independent experts where appropriate.
• Institutions.
• Ethics bodies.
• Publishers or other journals where necessary.
• Appropriate authorities.

Information should be shared only where reasonably necessary to examine or resolve the concern.

Confidentiality does not prevent ELSR from publishing an appropriate post-publication notice when editorial action is required.

 

29. Opportunity for Author Response

Where reasonably possible, authors should be given an opportunity to respond to significant concerns regarding their published article.

The Editorial Office may:

• Describe the concern.
• Request clarification.
• Request supporting documentation.
• Request original data or images.
• Establish a reasonable response period.

The authors' response will be considered as part of the editorial assessment.

Failure to respond does not prevent ELSR from taking appropriate editorial action based on the available information.

 

30. Disagreement Among Authors

Co-authors may disagree regarding a correction, retraction, or other post-publication action.

ELSR will consider the views of the authors but will prioritize the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record.

The journal may proceed with editorial action without unanimous author agreement.

Where relevant, a notice may identify which authors agreed or disagreed with the action.

The journal should avoid delaying necessary correction of the scientific record solely because of unresolved disagreement among authors.

 

31. Appeals Against Post-Publication Decisions

Authors may appeal a decision concerning a Correction, Expression of Concern, or Retraction when they believe that a significant factual, scientific, or procedural issue affected the decision.

An appeal should:

• Clearly identify the decision being challenged.
• Explain the basis of the appeal.
• Provide relevant supporting information.
• Identify any significant factual or procedural error.

Appeals are handled according to the ELSR Appeals & Complaints Policy.

Submission of an appeal does not automatically suspend a post-publication notice or reverse an editorial decision.

 

32. Citation and Indexing of Post-Publication Notices

Formal Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retraction notices should be published in a manner that supports appropriate identification and scholarly discovery.

Where technically appropriate, notices may receive:

• A separate publication record.
• Publication date.
• Citation information.
• DOI.
• Metadata.

ELSR should seek to communicate relevant article-status changes to appropriate indexing, DOI, archiving, and scholarly information services where such mechanisms are available.

 

33. DOI and Article Linking

Where an article has a DOI, the DOI of the original article should continue to identify the Version of Record.

Post-publication notices should be appropriately linked to the original article.

Where a separate DOI is assigned to a Correction, Expression of Concern, or Retraction notice, reciprocal linking should be maintained where technically possible.

Article-status information should be reflected in journal metadata where appropriate.

 

34. Preservation of the Scholarly Record

ELSR seeks to preserve the history and transparency of the published scientific record.

Formal post-publication notices should not normally be removed solely because the underlying dispute has concluded.

Where subsequent information changes the interpretation of an earlier notice, ELSR may publish an additional notice or update the scholarly record transparently.

The objective is to allow readers to understand the publication history and current status of the article.

 

35. Correction and Retraction Decision-Making

The Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Office are responsible for decisions concerning Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions.

Where appropriate, the journal may seek advice from:

• Members of the Editorial Board.
• Independent scientific experts.
• Research-integrity specialists.
• Institutions.
• Ethics bodies.
• Other appropriate professional or legal sources.

Individuals with a relevant conflict of interest should not control the assessment or final editorial decision.

Decisions should be based on the available evidence and the need to maintain an accurate scientific record.

 

36. Timing of Post-Publication Action

ELSR will seek to assess post-publication concerns within a reasonable period.

The time required may depend on:

• The complexity of the concern.
• Availability of supporting information.
• Author responses.
• Institutional investigations.
• Independent expert assessment.
• Legal or ethical considerations.

Where a serious unresolved concern is likely to require substantial time, an Expression of Concern may be considered.

The need for careful assessment should be balanced against the need to inform readers of significant concerns.

 

37. Good-Faith Reporting of Concerns

ELSR accepts good-faith concerns regarding published articles.

Individuals raising concerns should provide specific and relevant information where possible.

Concerns should focus on the scientific, ethical, or publication issue.

ELSR may decline to pursue communications that are:

• Clearly frivolous.
• Repeatedly abusive.
• Unrelated to the published work.
• Unsupported by any identifiable concern.
• Intended primarily to harass individuals.

Anonymous concerns may be considered when they contain specific, credible, and assessable information.

The identity of a person raising a concern will be handled with appropriate confidentiality where reasonably possible.

 

38. Relationship With Other ELSR Policies

This Corrections & Retractions Policy should be read together with the relevant ELSR policies, including:

• Editorial Policy.
• Peer Review Policy.
• Publication Ethics Policy.
• Authorship Policy.
• Plagiarism Policy.
• AI and Generative AI Policy.
• Copyright & Licensing Policy.
• Open Access Policy.
• Research Data Policy.
• Appeals & Complaints Policy.

Where a concern involves multiple policy areas, ELSR may assess the matter under all relevant policies.

 

39. Policy Oversight

The Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Office are responsible for overseeing the implementation of this Corrections & Retractions Policy.

ELSR may revise its post-publication procedures when necessary to reflect developments in scholarly publishing, publication ethics, research integrity, and publication infrastructure.

The journal will seek to handle Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions fairly, transparently, and in a manner that protects the integrity of the scientific record.

The principal consideration in post-publication action is the accuracy and reliability of the published scholarly record.