Corrections, Retractions, and Appeals

The International Journal of Medical Students (IJMS) is committed to maintaining an accurate, transparent, and reliable scholarly record. When a material error or concern is identified, the Journal may publish a correction, expression of concern, retraction, or another notice appropriate to the circumstances.

This policy also explains how authors may appeal an editorial decision or submit a complaint about the Journal’s editorial procedures. Appeals do not replace revision, resubmission, or post-publication correction procedures.

Contents

  1. Post-Publication Principles
  2. Reporting an Error or Concern
  3. Assessment of Post-Publication Concerns
  4. Corrections
  5. Corrections to Author Information
  6. Expressions of Concern
  7. Retractions
  8. Retraction Notices and Article Availability
  9. Article Removal and Replacement
  10. Updates That Do Not Require a Formal Notice
  11. Appeals of Editorial Decisions
  12. Appeal Assessment
  13. Complaints About Editorial Procedures
  14. Confidentiality and Communication
  15. Related Policies and Resources

Post-Publication Principles

Post-publication action is intended to preserve the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record rather than to punish authors or assign responsibility for misconduct.

The Journal considers:

  • the nature and seriousness of the error or concern;
  • whether the article’s findings and conclusions remain reliable;
  • whether readers could be misled without a formal notice;
  • whether the concern affects authorship, indexing, ethics, data, images, analysis, or interpretation;
  • whether the matter can be corrected without withdrawing the article;
  • the available evidence and supporting documentation;
  • the findings of an institution, ethics committee, funder, regulator, or other responsible body; and
  • the need to act promptly while ensuring a fair assessment.

The Journal may act regardless of whether an error resulted from an honest mistake, negligence, or misconduct. Determining an individual’s intent is not required before the Journal corrects the published record.

Reporting an Error or Concern

Authors, readers, reviewers, editors, institutions, and other individuals may notify the Journal of an error or concern involving a submitted or published article.

A report should include, when available:

  • the article title;
  • the authors’ names;
  • the article citation and DOI;
  • a clear description of the error or concern;
  • the affected text, table, figure, reference, metadata, or supplementary material;
  • an explanation of why the issue may affect the article or scholarly record; and
  • supporting documents, comparisons, data, or other relevant evidence.

Authors who identify an error in their own article must notify the Journal promptly and should not wait until the error is raised by another person.

Report an Article Error Report an Ethics or Integrity Concern

Assessment of Post-Publication Concerns

The Journal evaluates concerns according to their specificity, supporting evidence, potential effect on the article, and relevance to the scholarly record.

The assessment may include:

  1. reviewing the published article and editorial history;
  2. requesting an explanation from the authors;
  3. requesting original data, images, analysis files, approvals, permissions, or other documentation;
  4. consulting independent subject, statistical, methodological, ethical, or legal experts;
  5. seeking advice from the IJMS Ethics Committee;
  6. contacting an institution, ethics committee, funder, publisher, regulator, or another responsible body;
  7. determining whether an interim notice is necessary; and
  8. selecting the post-publication action that most accurately describes the status of the article.

The Journal may continue its assessment even when an author requests withdrawal of the concern, declines to respond, or disputes the proposed action.

Authors will ordinarily be given an opportunity to respond before a formal notice is published. Author agreement is not required when the Journal determines that action is necessary to protect readers or the scholarly record.

Corrections

A correction may be published when an error affects the interpretation, accuracy, completeness, discoverability, or indexing of an article but does not invalidate its principal findings and conclusions.

A correction may address:

  • an error in data, analysis, text, or interpretation;
  • an incorrect value, unit, percentage, label, or statistical result;
  • an error in a table, figure, legend, or supplementary file;
  • an omitted or inaccurate funding or competing-interest statement;
  • an error in an ethics, consent, registration, or data-availability statement;
  • an important reference or attribution error;
  • an error affecting an author’s name, affiliation, or contribution statement; or
  • another issue that could materially affect understanding or indexing.

A correction notice should:

  • identify the affected article;
  • describe the error accurately;
  • state the corrected information;
  • indicate whether the findings or conclusions are affected;
  • identify who requested or initiated the correction when appropriate; and
  • be linked electronically to the original article.

The original article ordinarily remains available. The article webpage and downloadable files may be updated or marked to direct readers to the correction notice.

Corrections to Author Information

A formal correction may be required when published author information is materially inaccurate.

Examples include:

  • a misspelled or incorrectly presented author name;
  • an omitted author who qualifies for authorship;
  • an individual incorrectly included as an author;
  • an incorrect author order;
  • an inaccurate affiliation;
  • an incorrect corresponding-author designation;
  • an incorrect CRediT contribution statement; or
  • a material omission in funding or competing-interest disclosures.

Requests involving the addition, removal, or reordering of authors require an explanation, an updated CRediT statement, and confirmation from all affected authors. The Journal may request institutional review when the authors disagree or when the available evidence is insufficient.

Minor updates to an author’s current contact information do not ordinarily justify changing the historical affiliation associated with the published work.

Expressions of Concern

An expression of concern may be published when substantial questions exist about an article but the available evidence does not yet support a correction or retraction.

An expression of concern may be appropriate when:

  • an investigation is underway and may take considerable time;
  • the evidence concerning the reliability of the article is inconclusive;
  • the authors or institution have not provided information needed to resolve the concern;
  • there are serious unresolved concerns about data, images, ethics, authorship, or peer review;
  • an institutional investigation appears inadequate or unavailable; or
  • readers should be alerted while further assessment continues.

The notice should describe the concern without making conclusions unsupported by the available evidence.

An expression of concern does not automatically change the publication status of the article. It may later be replaced or supplemented by a correction, retraction, updated expression of concern, or notice that the concern has been resolved.

Retractions

A retraction may be issued when the article’s findings, conclusions, authorship, ethical basis, or publication history are no longer sufficiently reliable for the article to remain part of the scholarly record without a clear warning.

Retraction may be appropriate when:

  • the findings are unreliable because of major error, fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate analysis;
  • data or images have been manipulated in a manner that affects reliability;
  • the article substantially plagiarizes or duplicates previously published work;
  • the work was published elsewhere without appropriate disclosure or authorization;
  • the article reports research conducted without required ethics approval or consent;
  • publication violates participant confidentiality or legal rights;
  • the peer-review or editorial process was manipulated;
  • the authorship is fraudulent or cannot be resolved adequately;
  • critical supporting data are unavailable and the reliability of the article cannot be established;
  • the article contains unauthorized or unlawfully published material; or
  • another serious concern makes the article unreliable or unethical.

Retraction may result from an honest error or from misconduct. The retraction notice should distinguish these circumstances when the available evidence permits.

The Journal does not ordinarily use partial retraction. When only a limited part of an otherwise reliable article is affected, a correction may be more appropriate.

Retraction Notices and Article Availability

A retraction notice should:

  • identify the retracted article clearly;
  • state who initiated the retraction;
  • explain the reason for the retraction;
  • distinguish verified facts from unresolved allegations;
  • indicate whether the authors agree with the retraction when relevant;
  • avoid defamatory, speculative, or unnecessarily personal language;
  • be freely accessible; and
  • be linked in both directions with the affected article.

A retracted article ordinarily remains available to preserve the history of the scholarly record. Its retracted status must be displayed prominently on the article webpage and on subsequent downloadable versions.

The retraction notice, rather than silent deletion, provides readers and indexing services with a transparent explanation of the article’s status.

Article Removal and Replacement

Removal of a published article is reserved for exceptional circumstances in which continued public availability would create a serious legal, privacy, or safety risk that cannot be addressed adequately through a correction, retraction, or redaction.

Removal may be considered when:

  • publication violates a binding legal order;
  • the article contains unlawful or defamatory material;
  • continued availability presents a serious and immediate risk to an individual or the public;
  • confidential or identifiable information was published without authorization; or
  • the article infringes rights in a manner that cannot be resolved through a limited correction.

When an article is removed, the bibliographic record should ordinarily remain available with a notice explaining why the content is unavailable, except when legal or safety requirements prevent such disclosure.

Replacement

Replacement may be considered when an article contains a serious error but a corrected version can preserve the valid work and prevent a significant risk arising from continued use of the original version.

The replacement process must identify the original article, explain the changes, and preserve a transparent connection between the versions.

Updates That Do Not Require a Formal Notice

Minor changes that do not affect interpretation, attribution, indexing, or the reliability of the scholarly record may be corrected without a formal correction notice.

Examples may include:

  • minor typographical or grammatical errors;
  • formatting inconsistencies;
  • nonfunctional links that can be updated without changing the cited content;
  • minor display problems introduced during production; or
  • contact-information updates that do not alter the historical publication record.

The Journal determines whether a change requires a formal notice. Authors should not alter or replace published files independently.

Appeals of Editorial Decisions

An author may appeal an editorial decision when there is a specific and substantive reason to believe that the decision resulted from a factual error, procedural irregularity, unmanaged conflict of interest, or material misapplication of Journal policy.

An appeal should:

  • identify the manuscript and decision being appealed;
  • state the precise basis of the appeal;
  • address the decision letter directly;
  • identify any factual or procedural error;
  • provide supporting evidence;
  • remain concise, professional, and respectful; and
  • be submitted by the corresponding author on behalf of the author group.

The following are not ordinarily sufficient grounds for appeal:

  • disagreement with a reviewer’s opinion without evidence of an evaluative error;
  • disappointment with the decision;
  • a request for another opportunity to revise without identifying an error;
  • the addition of new data or analyses that were not included in the evaluated manuscript;
  • comparison with another article accepted by the Journal;
  • claims based solely on the authors’ reputation or institutional status; or
  • repetition of arguments already considered during review.

An appeal is not a new round of peer review and does not suspend applicable deadlines unless the Journal states otherwise.

Appeal Assessment

The Journal may assign an appeal to an editor or governing body that was not directly responsible for the disputed decision whenever practical.

The appeal assessment may consider:

  • the original manuscript and submission files;
  • editorial assessments and reviewer reports;
  • the decision letter;
  • the authors’ responses and revision history;
  • the applicable policies;
  • the evidence supplied with the appeal; and
  • advice from an independent editor or specialist when needed.

Possible outcomes include:

Outcome Meaning
Decision upheld The original decision remains in effect.
Decision reconsidered The manuscript returns to editorial assessment, revision, or review.
Procedural correction A specific defect in the editorial process is corrected without guaranteeing a different publication decision.
Additional review Independent editorial, methodological, statistical, ethical, or subject review is obtained.
Appeal declined The appeal does not identify sufficient grounds for reconsideration.

Reconsideration does not guarantee external peer review, acceptance, or publication. The decision reached after the appeal assessment is ordinarily final within the Journal’s internal process.

Complaints About Editorial Procedures

A complaint concerns the conduct or administration of the Journal rather than the scholarly merits of an editorial decision.

A complaint may concern:

  • an unreasonable or unexplained editorial delay;
  • unprofessional or disrespectful communication;
  • discrimination, harassment, or retaliation;
  • a confidentiality breach;
  • an unmanaged conflict of interest;
  • failure to follow an established procedure;
  • misuse of personal information;
  • inappropriate reviewer or editor conduct; or
  • another concern involving editorial administration.

The complaint should identify the relevant manuscript or article, describe the event, provide supporting information, and state the resolution being requested.

Complaints should be evaluated by an individual who is sufficiently independent from the matter whenever practical. A complaint about the Editor-in-Chief may be referred to the Journal’s governing body, publisher, Ethics Committee, or another appropriate authority.

Submit an Appeal or Complaint

Confidentiality and Communication

Post-publication assessments, appeals, and complaints are handled as confidentially as practical. Information may be shared when necessary to conduct a fair assessment, obtain specialist advice, protect participants or readers, comply with law, or preserve the scholarly record.

The Journal may communicate with:

  • authors and contributors;
  • editors and reviewers;
  • institutions and research-integrity offices;
  • ethics committees;
  • funders and sponsors;
  • publishers and other journals;
  • indexing and archiving services;
  • legal or regulatory authorities; and
  • other individuals or organizations with a legitimate role in resolving the matter.

The Journal will avoid disclosing personal or confidential information that is not necessary for the assessment or notice.

Individuals involved in an assessment must not use the process to harass, threaten, intimidate, or retaliate against another person.

Editorial Policies

Editorial independence, decision-making, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, and peer-review oversight.

Research Ethics

Ethics review, consent, registration, privacy of participants, and animal-research requirements.

Authorship and Disclosures

Authorship criteria, author changes, CRediT contributions, funding, and competing interests.

Research Integrity

Originality, plagiarism, data and image reliability, duplicate publication, and editorial-process manipulation.

Open Access, Copyright, and Licensing

Author rights, publication licensing, permitted reuse, and preservation of published content.

Privacy and Data Protection

Handling of personal information submitted during complaints, appeals, and integrity assessments.
Review Research Integrity Contact the Journal

Return to top