Dealing of Misconduct

The Editor-in-Chief may consider retracting a publication under the following circumstances:

  • Clear evidence exists that the findings are unreliable due to a significant error (e.g., miscalculation or experimental mistake) or due to fabrication (e.g., falsified data) or manipulation (e.g., image tampering), constituting plagiarism.
  • The findings have been previously published elsewhere without proper attribution, disclosure to the editor, permission to republish, or justification (i.e., redundant publication), or the article contains unauthorized material or data.
  • Copyright has been infringed, or there is another significant legal issue (e.g., libel, privacy violations). The publication reports unethical research or is based on a compromised or manipulated peer review process.
  • The author(s) failed to disclose a significant conflict of interest that, in the editor's opinion, would have improperly influenced interpretations of the work or the recommendations of editors and peer reviewers.

Retraction notices should:

  • Be linked to the retracted article whenever possible, in all online versions.
  • Clearly identify the retracted article by including the title and authors in the retraction heading or by citing the retracted article.
  • Be distinctly labeled as a retraction, separate from other types of corrections or comments.
  • Be published promptly to minimize any potential harm.
  • Be freely accessible to all readers, without access barriers or subscription requirements.
  • Clearly state who is retracting the article.
  • Provide the reason(s) for the retraction.
  • Remain objective, factual, and avoid any inflammatory language.

 Retractions are generally not appropriate in the following cases:

  • There is a dispute over authorship, but no concerns about the validity of the findings.
  • The main findings remain reliable, and the errors or concerns can be adequately addressed through a correction.
  • The editor lacks conclusive evidence to support a retraction or is awaiting further information, such as the results of an institutional investigation.
  • Conflicts of interest have been reported after publication, but in the editor's judgment, they are unlikely to have influenced the interpretations, recommendations, or conclusions of the article.