Purpose and Governing Principle
This policy establishes how published content is amended after publication. Its governing principle is that the scholarly record is corrected transparently, not silently rewritten: readers who encountered an article before an amendment, and readers who encounter it afterwards, must be able to see that something changed, what changed and why. The categories below govern substantive record action. A journal may use conventional labels such as erratum or corrigendum, but each notice shall be classified and handled as a correction, addendum, Expression of Concern, retraction or removal under this policy. No substantive change shall be made to a published article without an accompanying notice.
Decision Authority and Independence
Decisions under this policy are editorial decisions taken by the journal’s editorial authority under A3, informed where necessary by the process in C5. LMI provides infrastructure, legal support and, where the journal’s own leadership is conflicted, independent handling under A4; LMI does not determine outcomes for commercial or reputational reasons. A decision to correct, mark with an Expression of Concern, retract or remove shall never be withheld, delayed, accelerated, softened or altered because of article-processing-charge refunds or financial loss (F2), reprint or licensing obligations (F3), sponsor, advertiser or institutional pressure (F3, A3), the seniority or influence of an author, or embarrassment or reputational consequence to the journal or to LMI. Any attempt to make a record action turn on such considerations is interference within A3 and is escalable under A4.
Correction
A correction is used where an error materially affects the accuracy, understanding, attribution or metadata of an article, but the work as a whole remains reliable and its conclusions stand. Corrections are published as a citable notice, linked bidirectionally with the article, stating what was incorrect, what the correct position is, and — where useful to readers — how the error arose. Where the article itself is amended, the amended version is clearly identified as corrected and the notice remains accessible; the original content shall not be replaced without such disclosure.
Purely production or presentational defects that do not alter meaning — a broken link, a display or typesetting fault, a mis-rendered character — may be repaired without a published notice, provided the repair cannot affect interpretation. Anything touching data, results, analysis, conclusions, authorship, funding, competing interests, ethics statements or citation is not in this class and requires a published correction. Authorship and metadata corrections follow C1 and G1 in addition to this section.
Addendum
An addendum is a citable notice adding supplementary information to an article that remains valid and uncorrected — for example additional context, clarification requested by readers, or further material the authors wish to place on record. An addendum shall not be used where an error requires a correction, or to soften an issue that properly calls for an Expression of Concern or retraction. Addenda are linked to the article and used sparingly.
Expression of Concern
An Expression of Concern is a citable notice alerting readers that serious questions have arisen about an article which cannot presently be resolved. It is appropriate where there is credible evidence of unreliability, misconduct or ethical concern, but the evidence is incomplete; an institutional or regulatory process is underway or unreasonably delayed; the persons concerned are unresponsive or unreachable; or jurisdictional or evidential barriers prevent timely resolution — and readers need warning meanwhile. An Expression of Concern states the nature of the concern and its current status, avoids asserting conclusions the evidence does not support, and is not a sanction. It shall not be used to punish, to signal displeasure, or as a permanent substitute for concluding a matter. Each Expression of Concern shall be revisited at defined intervals and resolved as soon as the position permits — by removal of the notice where the concern is dispelled, by correction, or by retraction — and its resolution published.
Retraction
A retraction is a citable notice recording that the findings or content of an article are not to be relied upon. Grounds include: fabrication or falsification of data, images or results (C5, E3); a major error, whether or not intentional, that invalidates the findings; plagiarism or duplicate publication of sufficient seriousness (C2); research conducted unethically, including absence of required ethics approval or consent (D1); manipulation of the publication process, including paper-mill origin, fabricated authorship or compromised peer review (C3, B2); undisclosed competing interests of a gravity that undermines confidence in the work (E1); and any other circumstance rendering the article fundamentally unreliable.
Retraction is not erasure. The retracted article ordinarily remains accessible, clearly and prominently marked as retracted on every page and in its metadata, and linked bidirectionally with the retraction notice, so that those who cited or relied on it can understand what happened. The notice shall identify the article, state who is retracting it and on what grounds, and give reasons sufficient to inform the record — while confining itself to what the evidence supports and avoiding gratuitous, unsupported or defamatory statements about individuals. Where some authors dissent, the notice may record that. Retraction may proceed without the agreement of some or all authors where the editorial authority is satisfied on the evidence that the record requires it; author disagreement is recorded, not treated as a veto. A retraction is not a finding of misconduct against any individual unless it says so on the basis of a determination reached under C5 or by a competent body.
Partial Retraction and Retract-and-Republish
A purported partial retraction is ordinarily inappropriate because it can obscure whether the article as a whole remains reliable. Where a discrete error can be corrected while the principal findings remain reliable, a correction shall be used. Where the principal findings are unreliable, the article shall be retracted. Any exceptional limitation of a retraction to a clearly separable component shall require compelling reasons, an unambiguous notice and metadata that prevents the unaffected and affected content from being confused.
Retract and republish is exceptional. It may be considered where an identifiable and correctable major error - ordinarily honest rather than deceptive - invalidates the original article but a corrected work can stand after complete new editorial assessment and peer review. The original article remains retracted; the replacement is a new Version of Record with a new persistent identifier, a full explanation, and bidirectional links. Republishing shall not be used to sanitise misconduct, erase history or avoid a warranted correction or retraction notice.
Removal
Removal — withdrawal of the content itself from public access — is exceptional and confined to circumstances where continued availability is unlawful or causes serious harm that no lesser measure can address. Limited grounds are: a binding legal order or clear legal obligation; defamatory or otherwise unlawful content that LMI cannot lawfully continue to host; a serious breach of privacy or confidentiality, including publication of identifiable participant material without valid consent, where redaction is inadequate (D1, A5); and content presenting an immediate and serious risk to health or safety where redaction cannot mitigate it (D5). Removal shall not be used because an article is embarrassing, controversial, commercially inconvenient, or has been retracted. Retraction, not removal, is the ordinary response to unreliability.
Where content is removed, LMI shall preserve, so far as legally and ethically possible, a tombstone page: the article’s bibliographic record and persistent identifier, resolving to a statement that the content has been removed and, so far as permissible, why and by whose authority. Where redaction of part of an article achieves the necessary protection, redaction with a published notice is preferred to removal of the whole.
Authors, Notice and Fair Process
Authors shall be informed of a proposed action under this policy, told the substance of the concern, and given a reasonable opportunity to respond before the action is taken, save where urgent protection of readers, participants or the public requires interim action — in which case the reasons shall be recorded and the authors informed as soon as practicable. Inability to reach the authors, or their refusal to agree, does not prevent action the record requires. Persons adversely affected may escalate under A4; where the underlying matter concerns alleged misconduct, C5’s due-process protections apply to that assessment.
Relationship to Investigation
C5 governs how concerns are assessed and by whom; this policy governs what happens to the published record. A journal may act under this policy to protect readers before an institution or regulator concludes its own process, where the evidence available to the journal warrants it, provided the notice states the basis on which the journal acts and does not assert findings the journal has not made. When the external process concludes, the journal shall revisit its action and, where appropriate, replace an Expression of Concern with a correction or retraction, or resolve it.
Appeals, Reversal and Correction of Notices
A person materially affected by a record action may challenge a procedural defect or present material new evidence through the relevant journal process and, where the criteria are met, Complaints & Appeals — Publisher Escalation (A4). Disagreement alone does not suspend a notice needed to protect readers. A retraction or other notice may be reversed only where reliable new evidence shows that the action was materially wrong; the reversal shall itself be a citable notice, and the original notice shall remain linked so that the history is transparent. Errors within a notice shall be corrected visibly rather than silently.
Timeliness and Case Records
Record actions shall be progressed without avoidable delay, prioritising participant safety, legal obligations and the risk that readers may rely on unreliable information. Each case shall retain the request or concern, conflict checks, evidence, author communications, advice, decisions, notice text, metadata updates, notifications and any appeal or later resolution. Delay by an institution or an absent author does not remove the journal’s independent responsibility to protect the record.
Propagation of Status
Every action under this policy shall be reflected wherever the article is held or supplied. LMI shall: update the article page prominently, so that the status is visible before the full text; update persistent-identifier metadata and status infrastructure, including Crossmark or equivalent where used (G1); link notice and article bidirectionally in both directions of navigation; transmit the updated status to preservation services, indexing and abstracting services and discovery systems so far as is reasonably possible; and, for commercial reprints and licensed copies, notify recipients and cease supply of superseded copies (F3, G1). Notices are themselves published content: they receive persistent identifiers, metadata and preservation on the same terms as articles.
Standards and Guidance
Informed by the COPE Retraction Guidelines and COPE Core Practices, the ICMJE Recommendations on corrections and retractions, and Crossmark status practice.