About Journal

Publication Ethics and Related Editorial Policies

The journal's policies on publication ethics follow COPE's Core Practices that were developed in 2017. The journal's policies on publication ethics can be explained as follow:

Journal’s Policies on Authorship and Contributorship

Authorship

The journal follows the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals (Updated May 2023). Authorship is based on the following four criteria:

• Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
• Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
• Final approval of the version to be published; AND
• Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

An author should be able to specify which co-authors are responsible for particular other portions of the work in addition to being accountable for the parts of the work he or she has done. Furthermore, authors should have faith in the integrity of their co-authors' contributions. 

The journal includes only one corresponding author per article.

Authors should meet all four ICMJE criteria for authorship, and all who meet the four criteria should be identified as authors.

The journal recognises only natural persons over 18 years of age as authors. Thus, authorship by an artificial intelligence is not considered. Author using an artificial intelligence should inform the details in the acknowledgment.

Contributorship

The journal follows the National Information Standards Organization's CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy). CRediT is a broad classification system that consists of 14 roles and is used to depict the roles usually taken on by those who contribute to research works. Each role outlines the particular contribution made by the contributor to the academic output.

1. Conceptualization: Ideas; formulation or evolution of overarching research goals and aims.
2. Data curation: Management activities to annotate (produce metadata), scrub data and maintain research data (including software code, where it is necessary for interpreting the data itself) for initial use and later re-use.
3. Formal analysis: Application of statistical, mathematical, computational, or other formal techniques to analyse or synthesize study data.
4. Funding acquisition: Acquisition of the financial support for the project leading to this publication.
5. Investigation: Conducting a research and investigation process, specifically performing the experiments, or data/evidence collection.
6. Methodology: Development or design of methodology; creation of models.
7. Project administration: Management and coordination responsibility for the research activity planning and execution.
8. Resources: Provision of study materials, reagents, materials, patients, laboratory samples, animals, instrumentation, computing resources, or other analysis tools.
9. Software: Programming, software development; designing computer programs; implementation of the computer code and supporting algorithms; testing of existing code components.
10. Supervision: Oversight and leadership responsibility for the research activity planning and execution, including mentorship external to the core team.
11. Validation: Verification, whether as a part of the activity or separate, of the overall replication/reproducibility of results/experiments and other research outputs.
12. Visualization: Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work, specifically visualization/data presentation.
13. Writing – original draft: Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work, specifically writing the initial draft (including substantive translation).
14. Writing – review & editing: Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work by those from the original research group, specifically critical review, commentary or revision – including pre- or post-publication stages.

Journal's Policies on Handling Complaints and Appeals

The journal’s policy for handling the complaints is in accordance with the guidelines published by the Committee on Publishing Ethics (COPE).

Before sending complaint to the Editor in Chief, through [email protected] and [email protected], the journal suggest complainant to contact the corresponding author and try to resolve the matter directly. However, the complainant can also directly send the complaint to the Editor in Chief in cases where there are valid reasons for not contacting the authors, if the authors were unresponsive when contacted, or if the discussion in the first instance did not resolve the concerns. When contacting the Editor in Chief, the following procedure should be followed:

1. The complainant who would like to raise a concern or complaint regarding a published article in the journal should email the Editor in Chief through [email protected] and [email protected], with a subject specifying the complaint. The letter should contain the following information: 
   1. article [title, authors, journal, publication date, DOI]
   2. complainant [title, current affiliation, position, other proof of expertise]
   3. complaint [academic/scientific validity, ethical or legal; summary of main points; adverse consequences anticipated]
   4. details of the complainant’s previous contact with the author or authors of the article
   5. statement that the complainant has no conflict of interest, or declaring any actual or potential conflict(s) of interest.
   6. an annotated PDF of the article should be provided that clearly marks the passages concerned and the reasons why they are of concern.
2. Only complaints regarding the scientific/academic validity or ethical or legal aspects of the work or its review will be considered. Complaints will not be considered if they contain personal criticisms of the authors, inappropriate or derogatory language, or where the complainant has used a false or misleading identity. All complaints will be investigated, including anonymous complaints. However, unless a specific and valid reason can be provided for wishing to remain anonymous, Frontiers reserves the right not to update the complainant on the outcome of the investigation. Complainants can request the Editor in Chief to handle their complaint confidentially to the extent that this can be accommodated by our internal protocols.
3. The Editor in Chief, if necessary, can consult with Advisory Editor and Associate Editor, to decide whether there are sufficient grounds for the complaint to be considered further. If further investigation is warranted, then the author(s) will be informed of the complaint. In certain cases, the Editor in Chief may publish an Expression of Concern indicating that serious objections have been raised. The Editor in Chief may also close the case as unsubstantiated at this stage. In this event, the complainant is informed that no further action will be taken.
   1. For complaints having legal implications, the journal will seek advice from its legal counsel, who might also contact the editors, the complainant, or the authors for further information. The journal reserves the right to retract articles that are, or are considered likely to be, in violation of applicable legal principles.
   2. For ethical concerns, the journal will execute the decision of the editors, who will follow widely accepted guidelines such as those by COPE as closely as possible, including concerns around suspicions of data manipulation and data fabrication; if it appears probable that such falsification has taken place, the case can be referred to the authors' institutions for investigation.
4. If the complaint is upheld by the Editor in Chief, the resulting investigation can result in any of the outcomes detailed below:
   1. The complaint is deemed unsubstantiated – No further action is taken, and the complainant is informed that the case has been closed. Further communication by the complainant on the subject will only be considered if additional information to substantiate the concerns is brought forward.
   2. Investigation into the complaint identifies errors that justify the publication of a corrigendum – The Editor in Chief will detail to the authors the points needed to be addressed in the corrigendum. The journal will work with the authors to ensure a corrigendum is published that satisfactorily deals with the issues identified in the Editor in Chief's decision. If the authors refuse, the Editor in Chief will proceed without the authors' consent to correct the literature and/or may initiate retraction.
   3. Investigation into the complaint reveals author bias on a contentious or controversial subject – The Editor in Chief decides on the most appropriate action to address the concerns, which can range from retraction to, for example, inviting a commentary on the article providing a balanced and objective context. The Editor in Chief will decide on the potential authors to be invited to write the commentary.
   4. Investigation into the complaint indicates that a retraction needs to be considered and further examined – An Expression of Concern may be published to notify readers of an ongoing investigation. The Editor in Chief may consult further experts, or the institutions concerned to reach a decision and under exceptional circumstances may form a committee to ensure a broader representation of views.
   5. Investigation into the complaint exposes an irrefutable reason for a retraction – The Editor in Chief endeavors to work together with the authors to retract the article but can do so even without the authors’ consent. The COPE retraction guidelines will be followed where applicable. A retraction notice will be published detailing the reasons for the retraction.
5. Complainants should note that investigations may take some time to conduct. The journal is under no obligation to divulge the status of the investigation until a decision has been reached by the Editor in Chief. When a notice is published, it will be brought to the attention of the complainant; The journal has no obligation to provide the complainant with additional details concerning the decision. Furthermore, the journal reserves the right to cease communication with complainants who do not remain cordial in their contact with the Editor in Chief.

The journal’s policy for handling the authors’ appeals against a rejection can be explained as follow:

The authors have the right to appeal against a rejection from the journal. An appeal is an extension of the peer review process and the same ethical standards apply. Thus, authors you should not submit an appeal whilst the article is under consideration by another publication. 

The authors lodging an appeal should contact the Editor in Chief through [email protected] and [email protected] outlining the case for reconsideration. To be considered, appeals must directly address the reason(s) given for the initial rejection decision. If reviewer reports were included with the decision letter, then these criticisms must be responded to in the appeal. Appeals that do not address reviewers’ criticisms, are dismissive of the reviewer comments, or contain offensive language will not be considered.

Appeals that meet the requirements above are sent to Advisory Editor for consideration. If successful, an appeal can lead to the article’s re-entering the peer review process. The article may ultimately be published following any revisions deemed necessary by the Advisory Editor. The authors should not submit a revised version of the article until the appeal process is complete. If the appeal is rejected, then the original rejection decision is upheld and no further consideration of that article is possible.

Journal's Policies on Handling Allegations of Research Misconduct

The journal’s policy for managing allegations of research misconduct is based on the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

Authors are required to read the journal’s author guidelines and policies carefully and to adhere to the terms before submission. Research misconduct refers to unethical behavior or actions that undermine the integrity and credibility of scientific research. The most common types of research misconduct include plagiarism, fabrication or falsification of data, and inappropriate authorship practices.

Plagiarism involves using someone else's work, ideas, or words without proper acknowledgment. It can occur in various forms, such as copying sections of text, paraphrasing without citation, or presenting someone else's ideas as one's own. Fabrication or falsification of data involves the deliberate manipulation or invention of research findings or experimental data, which can lead to false conclusions or misleading scientific claims. Inappropriate authorship practices occur when individuals are credited as authors without having made a significant contribution to the research or when deserving contributors are omitted from authorship.

Editors in Chief plays a crucial role in preventing research misconduct during the peer review process. Several measures implemented to safeguard the integrity of the research and uphold ethical standards are:

1. Promote awareness: Editor in Chief inform authors, reviewers, and editorial board members about research misconduct, ethical guidelines, and responsible conduct of research for the journal through clear instructions, guidelines, and other communication means.
2. Peer reviewer selection: Editor in Chief carefully select peer reviewers who have expertise in the relevant field and are committed to upholding ethical standards. Reviewers should be aware of potential signs of misconduct and be encouraged to report any concerns.
3. Thorough review process: Editor in Chief ensures a rigorous and transparent peer review process. Reviewers should scrutinize the submitted manuscripts for potential misconduct, including plagiarism, data manipulation, or questionable research practices.
4. Use plagiarism detection software: Editor in Chief employs TurnItIn as a plagiarism detection tool to screen submissions for potential instances of plagiarism or text recycling. It helps identifying cases of unacknowledged or improper use of existing work.
5. Cross-check data and results: Editor in Chief encourages reviewers to examine the accuracy and validity of the presented data and results.

Although the Editor in Chief has made various efforts to anticipate research misconduct in the journal, some issues may still arise. Therefore, the journal is open to receiving reports from readers regarding potential research misconduct. The Editor in Chief operates on the principle of presumption of innocence when receiving reports of potential research misconduct from readers until they are proven to be true.

Report of research misconduct may be related to a published article or a manuscript under peer-review process. The procedure for the application and management of complaints of author misconduct should proceed with sensitivity, tact, in confidence, and in the following manner:

1. The Editor in Chief receives a complaint through email that an article submitted to or published in the journal is suspected of containing research misconduct.
2. The complainant needs to clearly indicate the specific manner and detail of misconduct; for example, in a case of plagiarism, the plagiarized paragraph should be clearly highlighted and the original and suspected articles should be referred to clearly.
3. The Editor in Chief will conduct an investigation, during which time the section editor of the particular suspected articles and the corresponding author(s) of the suspected article will be in contact. The Editor in Chief can also invite any Advisory Editor or Associate Editor in the process.
4. The corresponding author(s) will be asked to provide an explanation with factual statements and any available evidence.
5. If the author(s) of the suspected article accepts the misconduct complaint, the Editor in Chief will take the following actions depending on the situation:
   1. If the article has been published, an erratum or retraction may be necessary to remedy the situation. However, there may still be disagreement concerning the appropriate wording of the description.
   2. If the misconduct is reported during the review process, the review process may continue, with the author(s) making the relevant changes.
6. In the case of nonresponse in the stipulated time or an unsatisfactory explanation, the article may be permanently retracted or rejected. Before making a decision, confirmation will be sought from the experts of the relevant institution or other authorities as required.
7. The complainant will be informed of the outcome once the issue is resolved.
8. The complaint case will thereupon be considered concluded.

The journal is adherent to the principles of the and is currently applying membership to the COPE. Once the application is accepted, some information on this matter will be updated.

Journal’s Policies on Conflicts of Interest

The journal’s policy for conflicts of interest or competing interests is based on the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

A conflict of interest can also be known as ‘competing interest’. A conflict of interest can occur when the authors, or their employer, or sponsor have a financial, commercial, legal, or professional relationship with other organizations, or with the people working with them, that could influence the research.

When the authors submit paper to the journal, full disclosure is required. The Editor in Chief will firstly use this information to inform initial editorial decision. Then, after the acceptance, there will be a published disclosure to assist readers in evaluating the article. The Editor in Chief may decide not to publish the paper on the basis of any declared conflict of interest.

The author can declare the conflict of interest in the cover letter or on the manuscript submission form in the journal’s Open Journal System.

Conflict of interests can be financial or non-financial in nature. To maintain transparency, any associations which can be perceived by others as a conflict of interest must also be declared.

Some examples of financial conflicts of interests include:

1. Employment or voluntary involvement
2. Collaborations with advocacy groups relating to the content of the article
3. Grants from an entity, paid to the author or organization
4. Personal fees received by the authors as honoraria, royalties, consulting fees, lecture fees, or testimonies
5. Patents held or pending by the authors, their institutions, funding organizations, or licensed to an entity, whether earning royalties or not
6. Royalties being received by the authors or their institutions
7. Stock or share ownership
8. Benefits related to the development of products as an outcome of the work

Examples of non-financial conflicts of interests:

1. Receipt of drugs, specialist equipment, tools, computer programs, or digital applications
2. Access to data repositories, archival resources, museum collections, by an entity that might benefit, or be at a disadvantage financially or reputationally from the published findings
3. Holding a position on the boards of industry bodies or private companies that might benefit, or be at a disadvantage financially or reputationally from the published findings
4. Writing assistance or administrative support from a person or organization that might benefit, or be at a disadvantage from the published findings
5. Personal, political, religious, ideological, academic and intellectual competing interests which are perceived to be relevant to the published content
6. Involvement in legal action related to the work

If there are no competing interests to declare, authors should include a statement to the article to confirm that there are no relevant financial or non-financial competing interests to report.

Journal’s Policies on Data Sharing and Reproducibility

Journal’s policies on data sharing and reproducibility are based on on the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

The journal strongly encourages authors to include as supplementary material data sets and code, if any, that demonstrate the results shown in their final article. The journal policy encouraging the authors to share and make the data open is applicable only where this does not violate protection of human subjects or other valid subject privacy concerns. The authors are also encouraged to cite data and provide a data availability statement in the end of the manuscript.

A data availability statement (also sometimes called a ‘data access statement’) tells the reader where the research data associated with a paper is available, and under what conditions the data can be accessed. They also include links (where applicable) to the data set. The table below contains template statements that the authors can use or adapt. This is not an exhaustive list however, and an individual data set might warrant a different type of statement

Journal's Policies on Ethical Oversight

The journal’s policies for ethical oversight are based on the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). According to the COPE, “ethical oversight should include, but is not limited to, policies on consent to publication, publication on vulnerable populations, ethical conduct of research using animals, ethical conduct of research using human subjects, handling confidential data and ethical business/marketing practices.” Based on this, the journal‘s policies can be explained as follow:

Consent to Publication

The journal’s submission has consisted information that the authors checklist including their consent to publish, copyright and license, and others. Thus, any submission received should be considered based on the authors’ consent.

Publication on Vulnerable Populations

The journal recognizes the importance of research on vulnerable populations and the need to shed light on their unique challenges and experiences. We welcome scholarly contributions in this area, provided that all ethical considerations and guidelines are rigorously followed throughout the research process. It is crucial to ensure that studies involving vulnerable populations are conducted with the utmost care, respect, and protection of the rights and well-being of the individuals involved. Researchers must obtain appropriate informed consent, maintain confidentiality, and address any potential risks or harm that may arise from their research. The journal expects authors to adhere to the highest ethical standards and follow established guidelines when conducting studies on vulnerable populations.

In instances where the Editor-in-Chief believes that a publication on vulnerable populations may have legal implications, the matter will be carefully reviewed. The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the authors and advisory editor, may discuss the potential legal aspects and determine the best course of action. Depending on the scope and nature of the article, the Editor-in-Chief may also engage with official government bodies at the national or international level to ensure compliance with legal requirements and protect the rights of the vulnerable populations under study.

The journal remains committed to promoting responsible research practices and addressing the needs and concerns of vulnerable populations. By maintaining a rigorous ethical framework, we aim to contribute to the advancement of knowledge and the well-being of these populations, while upholding the principles of integrity, dignity, and social responsibility.

Ethical Conduct of Research Using Animals

The journal recognizes the importance of ethical conduct in research involving animals and is committed to promoting the responsible and humane use of animals in scientific studies. As part of our commitment to upholding ethical standards, we require authors to provide information about the appropriate institutional review board (IRB) or animal care and use committee (IACUC) approval in their submissions or within the article itself.

For studies involving animals, authors should include details about the approval obtained from the relevant institutional or ethical review board responsible for overseeing animal research. This information should demonstrate that the study adhered to established guidelines for the ethical treatment of animals, such as the principles outlined in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals.

By requiring this information, we aim to ensure that research published in the journal meets the highest ethical standards in animal welfare. We recognize the importance of respecting the rights and well-being of animals used in scientific research and expect authors to uphold these principles in their work. Transparency and accountability in reporting the ethical aspects of animal research contribute to the advancement of knowledge while promoting responsible conduct in the scientific community.

Ethical Conduct of Research Using Human Subjects

The journal recognizes the paramount importance of ethical conduct in research involving human subjects. We are committed to upholding the highest ethical standards and promoting the well-being, rights, and privacy of individuals participating in research studies. In line with this commitment, we require authors to provide an institutional review board (IRB) approval and a thorough explanation of how informed consent was obtained from all participants in their research involving human subjects.

Informed consent is a fundamental ethical principle in research involving human subjects. Authors should ensure that participants are fully informed about the purpose, procedures, risks, and potential benefits of the study, and that they voluntarily provide their consent to participate. If there is any reasonable possibility that complete anonymity cannot be maintained, informed consent should be obtained from participants.

Respecting the privacy and confidentiality of human subjects is of utmost importance. Authors should never violate the privacy of individuals without prior informed consent. When reporting study data, identifying information should be excluded unless it is essential for the purposes of the study and the subject (or their legal representative) has given prior written informed consent.

In cases where informed consent has been obtained, it is crucial for authors to include documentation of this consent in their articles. By adhering to these ethical guidelines, we aim to ensure the protection and welfare of human subjects involved in research studies and maintain the integrity of scientific research.

Handling Confidential Data

The journal is committed to upholding the highest standards of ethical conduct and protecting the confidentiality of data. Authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to handle confidential data with utmost care and in compliance with relevant regulations and guidelines. Confidential data should be securely stored and transmitted, accessible only to authorized individuals involved in the peer-review process. Any potential conflicts of interest related to the handling of confidential data must be disclosed. In case of concerns regarding data privacy or breaches, the journal will initiate appropriate investigations and take necessary actions to safeguard confidentiality and ensure integrity in research and publication.

Ethical Business/Marketing Practices

The journal is committed to upholding ethical standards in all aspects of its operations, including the publication process. The journal firmly believes in fostering a fair and transparent environment that promotes scholarly excellence and discourages any practices that may exploit authors or compromise the integrity of academic research. As part of the commitment to ethical business and marketing practices, the journal does not engage in any activities that attract authors to publish their work at high costs or under misleading circumstances. The journal maintains a clear and equitable publishing process that is free from undue influence or financial exploitation.

It is important for authors to be aware that the journal takes no responsibility for any offers or solicitations from individuals or entities claiming to represent the and engaging in such unethical practices. If any author is approached with such offers, the journal strongly encourages them to consult the Editor-in-Chief to verify the authenticity of the offer and seek guidance on how to proceed.

By prioritizing ethical conduct and integrity, thee strive to maintain the credibility and reputation of the academic community at large. The journal is dedicated to ensuring that the publication process remains fair, unbiased, and free from any practices that compromise the principles of academic integrity and responsible research dissemination.

Journal's Policies on Intellectual Property

The journal’s policies intellectual property are based on the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). According to the COPE, policies on intellectual property should include copyright, license, and cost associated with the journal publication. Based on this, the journal‘s policies can be explained as follow:

The copyright of each article is retained by the author(s).  The author grants the journal the first publication rights with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International, allowing others to share the work with an acknowledgment of authorship and the initial publication in this journal. Authors may enter into separate additional contractual agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of published journal versions of the work (for example, posting them to institutional repositories or publishing them in a book), with acknowledgment of their initial publication in this journal. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (For example in the Institutional Repository or on their website) before and during the submission process, as this can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and larger citations of published work. Articles and all related material published are distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

The published content in this journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Anyone is free to Share (copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format) and Adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially) under the following terms: Attribution (You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use; ShareAlike (If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original); and No additional restrictions (You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits).

The journal charges article processing charge (APC) of Rp3,000,000.00, Rp6,000,000.00, Rp9,000,000.00, or Rp12,000,000.00. APC differs based on the corresponding author's country of origin. The journal follows classification by income from the World Bank. This charge is applied only after a submission is accepted. Author should understand that willingness to pay does not guarantee the acceptance of a submission.

Waiver policy of 25% APC discount will be applied for each submission by a Ph.D. or a Master student as corresponding author submitting dissertation or thesis or part of it accompanied by supervisors. A proof of student status from university should be attached during submission. Author with waiver policy should understand that the waiver will not influence editorial decision.

Article processing charge will not be used for editorial team salary to ensure independence and integrity in editorial decision.

Journal's Options for Post-Publication Discussions

The journal values open dialogue and constructive engagement with our readership. We welcome discussions and feedback from readers on the contents published in our journal. We believe that post-publication discussions contribute to the advancement of knowledge and foster a vibrant academic community.

Readers who wish to share their comments or provide feedback on published articles are encouraged to do so. They can send their comments directly to the Editor-in-Chief via the provided contact information. Additionally, readers have the option to post their comments on the independent online platform, https://pubpeer.com/. This platform allows for transparent and public discussions surrounding published articles.

In the future, we are committed to enhancing the accessibility and convenience of post-publication discussions. We aim to implement a feature on our website that will enable readers to comment directly on published articles. This will facilitate a more seamless and interactive exchange of ideas within our academic community.

Journal’s Policies on Corrections and Retractions

Journal’s policies on corrections and retractions are based on the Public Knowledge Project (PKP)’s documentation and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)’s retraction guidelines.

While errors in the publication record should be avoided if possible, prior to publishing, the journal will be proactive to address potential corrections or retractions. Necessity for corrections and retractions can arise from a number of sources, including:

• Error within the publication process
• Author request
• Report by reader or external party

Corrections and retractions in the journal can be categorized into three major categories:

• Minor Corrections: small errors that do not substantially change the content of the published work. For example: typos, metadata errors.
• Substantive Corrections: meaningful errors that impact the content. For example: addition or removal of meaningful sentences / paragraphs, changes to figures or data.
• Retractions: take-down of entire works (partial retractions should be avoided, and treated as a substantive correction).

Editor in Chief will should consider retracting a publication if:

• There is a 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 will be made in the presence of a retraction:

• 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
• The Editor in Chief has inconclusive evidence to support retraction, or is awaiting additional information such as from an institutional investigation
• 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.

Latest Update: August 3, 2024, 14:06 GMT 7+.