Retraction Policy

Digital Health & Telemonitoring Advances is committed to maintaining the accuracy, reliability, transparency, and integrity of the scholarly record. Retraction is considered when reliable evidence indicates that a published article, or a substantial part of it, can no longer be relied upon as a valid contribution to the scholarly literature.

The primary purpose of retraction is to inform readers that serious problems affect the reliability, integrity, legality, or ethical acceptability of a published work. Retraction is not intended primarily as a disciplinary sanction against authors. Questions concerning institutional discipline, employment, professional misconduct, or legal liability ordinarily remain the responsibility of the competent institutions or authorities.

This policy applies to all scholarly content formally published by Digital Health & Telemonitoring Advances, including research articles, reviews, methodological papers, clinical studies, technical studies, case reports, short communications, supplementary materials, and other published scholarly records where appropriate.

1. Purpose of Retraction

Retraction may be used when leaving an article in the scholarly literature without a clear warning would materially mislead readers concerning the reliability or integrity of the work.

Retraction serves to:

• identify research that should no longer be relied upon in its published form;

• protect the accuracy of the scholarly record;

• alert readers to serious methodological, ethical, or integrity problems;

• maintain transparency concerning post-publication findings;

• reduce continued reliance on fundamentally unreliable conclusions; and

• preserve a traceable record of the journal's corrective action.

Retraction does not necessarily mean that every author engaged in misconduct.

2. Grounds for Retraction

The journal may consider retraction where reliable evidence demonstrates one or more serious problems, including:

• fabrication of data, results, participants, observations, or research records;

• falsification or inappropriate manipulation of data;

• substantial plagiarism;

• serious image manipulation;

• major methodological errors that invalidate the principal findings;

• substantial computational or statistical errors that render conclusions unreliable;

• duplicate or redundant publication without appropriate justification;

• unauthorized publication of confidential or protected material;

• unethical research involving human participants;

• absence or falsification of required ethical approval;

• serious informed-consent violations;

• significant breaches of patient privacy or confidentiality;

• fraudulent or manipulated peer review;

• major authorship misconduct affecting the integrity of the article;

• material undisclosed conflicts of interest;

• fabricated or substantially unreliable references;

• serious misrepresentation of research data;

• significant misuse of artificial intelligence;

• presentation of synthetic or simulated results as genuine empirical findings;

• copyright infringement that materially affects the publication;

• legal findings that make continued publication inappropriate; or

• another fundamental problem that renders the published work unreliable.

The existence of an allegation alone is not sufficient for retraction. Decisions should be based on evidence and appropriate editorial assessment.

3. Retraction for Honest Error

Retraction may sometimes be necessary even where no research misconduct occurred.

Examples may include:

• major calculation errors;

• incorrect coding;

• substantial software errors;

• invalid analytical assumptions;

• incorrect sample identification;

• serious equipment or measurement failures;

• mistaken use of an unsuitable dataset;

• major methodological flaws discovered after publication; or

• another unintentional error that invalidates the principal conclusions.

Where the evidence supports an honest error rather than misconduct, the retraction notice should distinguish this clearly where possible.

4. When Retraction Is Not Normally Appropriate

Retraction should not ordinarily be used when a less severe and more proportionate correction can adequately maintain the reliability of the publication.

Retraction may not be appropriate where:

• a minor error does not affect the findings;

• a limited numerical error can be corrected transparently;

• an author affiliation requires amendment;

• a funding statement requires correction;

• a minor authorship-related metadata error can be resolved;

• an isolated figure or table error does not invalidate the main conclusions;

• later research reaches a different conclusion;

• legitimate scholarly disagreement exists;

• authors wish to change their interpretation after publication; or

• criticism concerns preference for an alternative methodology rather than an identifiable fatal flaw.

Such matters may be addressed through a correction, clarification, scholarly correspondence, or post publication discussion.

5. Correction Versus Retraction

The journal will ordinarily prefer a correction when the principal findings remain reliable and the identified problem can be repaired transparently.

Retraction is more appropriate when:

• the central results are unreliable;

• substantial portions of the evidence are compromised;

• valid and invalid findings cannot reasonably be separated;

• methodological problems invalidate the main conclusions;

• serious misconduct affects the reliability of the article; or

• a correction would not adequately prevent readers from being misled.

The editorial decision should reflect the seriousness and effect of the problem rather than the professional status of the authors.

6. Expression of Concern

Where serious concerns arise but sufficient evidence for a final decision is not yet available, the journal may issue an Expression of Concern.

This may be appropriate where:

• an institutional investigation is underway;

• evidence is substantial but incomplete;

• conflicting information prevents a definitive conclusion;

• authors or institutions have not provided necessary information;

• an investigation is expected to take considerable time; or

• readers should be alerted while a potentially serious issue remains unresolved.

An Expression of Concern is not equivalent to a finding of misconduct and may later be followed by correction, retraction, clarification, or closure of the concern. COPE's current guidance recognizes Expressions of Concern as an interim or, in some cases, final publication notice where uncertainty remains.

7. Reporting a Retraction Concern

Authors, readers, reviewers, editors, institutions, research-integrity officers, funding organizations, or other stakeholders may report concerns regarding a published article.

A concern should, where possible, include:

• article title;

• author names;

• DOI or other article identifier;

• description of the concern;

• relevant evidence;

• supporting references or documentation; and

• reliable contact information.

The journal evaluates concerns according to their substance and evidence rather than the professional position of the person reporting them.

8. Anonymous Allegations

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

The absence of a named complainant does not automatically invalidate an allegation.

However, anonymous accusations that lack sufficient evidence or cannot reasonably be investigated may not justify formal editorial action.

The journal will seek to protect the identity of individuals raising concerns in good faith where confidentiality is appropriate and reasonably possible.

9. Initial Editorial Assessment

When a potential retraction matter is identified, the journal conducts an initial assessment to determine:

• whether the issue concerns an article published by the journal;

• whether the concern is specific and credible;

• whether the issue affects reliability or integrity;

• whether the matter may be resolved through correction;

• whether further evidence is required;

• whether institutional involvement is necessary; and

• whether immediate reader notification is warranted.

The journal may obtain independent expert advice where specialized methodological, statistical, clinical, technical, ethical, or legal expertise is necessary.

10. Notification of Authors

Authors will ordinarily be informed when a substantive concern concerning their published article requires formal investigation.

Authors may be asked to provide:

• an explanation;

• underlying research data;

• statistical files;

• analytical code;

• original images;

• research protocols;

• ethics approval documentation;

• informed-consent documentation;

• authorship information;

• funding records;

• source files;

• correspondence; or

• other relevant evidence.

Authors should be given a reasonable opportunity to respond before a final decision is reached, except where exceptional circumstances require immediate action.

11. Author Cooperation

Authors are expected to cooperate with legitimate inquiries concerning the reliability or integrity of their published work.

Failure to respond does not automatically establish research misconduct.

However, persistent failure to provide information necessary to evaluate serious concerns may affect the journal's ability to regard the article as reliable.

Where authors cannot be contacted, the journal may proceed on the basis of the evidence reasonably available.

12. Institutional Involvement

Some allegations require investigative authority or access to evidence beyond the journal's capacity.

The journal may therefore communicate with:

• universities;

• research institutions;

• hospitals;

• ethics committees;

• research-integrity offices;

• funding bodies;

• regulatory authorities; or

• other responsible organizations

where such involvement is necessary to clarify a serious concern.

The journal's role is primarily to maintain the scholarly record and does not replace the formal investigative authority of institutions.

13. Retraction Before Completion of an Institutional Investigation

The journal does not necessarily have to wait indefinitely for an institutional investigation before taking corrective action.

If sufficient reliable evidence demonstrates that the article cannot reasonably be relied upon, the journal may act to protect the scholarly record.

Where evidence remains incomplete but serious concerns exist, an Expression of Concern may be more appropriate until further information becomes available.

14. Research Misconduct

Where suspected fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, peer-review manipulation, authorship misconduct, or other serious research misconduct is involved, the matter may also be handled under the journal's Research Misconduct Policy.

A journal retraction does not itself constitute a formal institutional finding of misconduct.

Similarly, an institutional finding may inform but does not automatically determine the exact editorial action required.

15. Human Participant and Clinical Research Concerns

Retraction may be considered where published research involving human participants contains serious ethical deficiencies that materially undermine its acceptability or integrity.

Examples may include:

• falsified ethics approval;

• research performed without approval where approval was required;

• serious consent violations;

• unauthorized use of patient records;

• unacceptable privacy breaches;

• publication of identifiable patient information without required consent;

• serious undisclosed participant risks; or

• substantial departures from approved research procedures.

The journal will consider the nature of the violation and its effect on both participant welfare and reliability of the publication.

16. Clinical Trial Concerns

For applicable clinical trials, serious problems involving trial conduct or reporting may require additional editorial investigation.

Potential concerns may include:

• fabricated registration details;

• undisclosed major protocol deviations;

• manipulation of primary outcomes;

• substantial selective reporting;

• falsified participant information;

• serious safety information omitted from the article; or

• materially misleading representation of intervention outcomes.

Not every protocol deviation requires retraction. Editorial action depends on its seriousness and effect on the validity of the published work.

17. Artificial Intelligence Related Grounds

Because Digital Health & Telemonitoring Advances publishes research involving digital technologies and artificial intelligence, serious AI-related integrity concerns may constitute grounds for retraction.

Examples may include:

• fabricated AI-generated research data;

• invented references;

• falsely reported model performance;

• manipulated validation results;

• synthetic data represented as genuine patient data;

• undisclosed generation of substantial research findings;

• misrepresentation of training or test datasets;

• fabricated clinical outcomes generated by AI tools;

• inappropriate AI-created images presented as genuine research evidence; or

• another use of AI that fundamentally compromises the authenticity of the article.

Human authors remain responsible for the reliability of all published content.

18. Data Integrity

Retraction may be necessary where data problems fundamentally undermine the reliability of an article.

Potential concerns may include:

• fabricated datasets;

• substantial falsification;

• deliberate manipulation;

• repeated duplication of observations;

• undisclosed substitution of datasets;

• serious inconsistencies between data and published findings; or

• inability to establish that the reported research data existed.

The inability to provide original data alone does not automatically justify retraction where legitimate reasons for data loss exist and the article can otherwise be independently evaluated.

19. Image Manipulation

Materially misleading manipulation of medical images, microscopy images, photographs, graphs, screenshots, diagnostic images, or other research evidence may justify retraction where it substantially affects the reliability of the article.

Where an image problem is isolated and does not compromise the overall conclusions, correction may be sufficient.

The journal may request original image files where necessary to assess potential manipulation.

20. Plagiarism

Substantial plagiarism may constitute grounds for retraction.

The journal will consider:

• amount of copied material;

• scholarly significance of the copied content;

• whether ideas or findings were misappropriated;

• attribution provided;

• effect on originality; and

• whether correction could adequately resolve the problem.

Minor citation deficiencies may be corrected, whereas extensive plagiarism that undermines the originality or integrity of the article may require retraction.

21. Duplicate Publication

An article may be retracted where substantially the same research has been published elsewhere without appropriate disclosure and the duplicate publication materially distorts the scholarly record.

The journal will consider:

• chronology of publication;

• overlap in data;

• overlap in conclusions;

• disclosure by the authors;

• copyright considerations; and

• whether one article clearly represents the legitimate version of record.

Limited legitimate overlap does not automatically justify retraction.

22. Peer Review Manipulation

Confirmed manipulation of peer review may warrant retraction where the integrity of the editorial evaluation was materially compromised.

Examples may include:

• fabricated reviewer identities;

• fraudulent reviewer accounts;

• impersonation;

• coordinated review rings;

• falsified reviewer contact information; or

• unauthorized control of reviewer reports.

Where appropriate, the journal may independently re-evaluate the article before determining whether retraction is necessary.

23. Authorship Misconduct

Authorship disputes alone do not normally justify retraction if the research itself remains reliable.

Authorship problems may often be resolved through a correction.

However, retraction may be considered where authorship misconduct is part of broader deception that materially affects the integrity or provenance of the research.

Unresolved disputes concerning contribution may be referred to the relevant institution.

24. Conflicts of Interest

Failure to disclose a conflict of interest does not automatically require retraction.

The journal will consider whether the undisclosed interest:

• materially affected the conduct or interpretation of the research;

• undermined the credibility of the publication;

• involved serious deception; or

• would have materially changed editorial or reader evaluation of the work.

Where disclosure alone is sufficient, a correction may be more appropriate.

25. Copyright and Legal Concerns

Retraction or exceptional removal may be considered where publication involves serious copyright infringement, unlawful disclosure, defamation, court orders, or other legal issues.

The journal will distinguish between:

• scholarly invalidity;

• copyright concerns;

• legal obligations; and

• matters that can be resolved through correction or removal of specific material.

Legal consultation may be obtained where appropriate.

26. Retraction Decision

The final decision to retract an article rests with the journal's authorized editorial leadership.

The decision should consider:

• reliability of the evidence;

• seriousness of the concern;

• impact on the principal findings;

• responses from authors;

• independent expert assessments;

• institutional findings where available;

• ethical considerations;

• legal requirements where applicable; and

• the journal's responsibility to maintain an accurate scholarly record.

Commercial or reputational considerations must not override the need for appropriate corrective action.

27. Author Agreement

Author agreement is desirable but is not required for retraction.

Where reliable evidence demonstrates that an article should be retracted, the journal may proceed even if:

• one author objects;

• several authors object;

• authors do not respond; or

• authors cannot be contacted.

The retraction notice may state, where relevant, whether authors agreed or disagreed with the decision.

28. Author-Initiated Retraction

Authors who discover a fundamental error in their published research should notify the journal promptly.

A request should explain:

• the nature of the problem;

• how it affects the findings;

• whether the problem results from honest error or another cause;

• which sections are affected; and

• whether all authors agree with the request.

The journal independently evaluates author requests and determines the appropriate form of corrective action.

29. Retraction Notice

Every retraction should be accompanied by a clear Retraction Notice.

The notice should, where legally and ethically appropriate:

• clearly identify itself as a retraction;

• identify the affected article;

• state the article title;

• identify the authors;

• include appropriate bibliographic information;

• explain the principal reason for retraction;

• identify who initiated the retraction where relevant;

• distinguish honest error from confirmed misconduct where possible;

• state whether authors agree or disagree where useful;

• remain openly accessible; and

• be linked permanently to the affected article.

COPE guidance emphasizes clear, visible, informative retraction notices linked to the retracted publication.

30. Language of Retraction Notices

Retraction notices should use factual, neutral, precise, and non-defamatory language.

Notices should avoid:

• speculation;

• unnecessary personal criticism;

• unsupported allegations;

• inflammatory language; and

• conclusions beyond the available evidence.

The notice should provide sufficient information to explain why readers should no longer rely on the article.

31. Accessibility of Retraction Notices

Retraction notices should remain freely accessible to readers.

A reader should not be required to pay a subscription or access charge to determine that an article has been retracted.

The notice should form part of the permanent scholarly record.

32. Status of the Retracted Article

A retracted article should ordinarily remain accessible as part of the historical scholarly record rather than being silently deleted.

Where technically feasible:

• the article page should clearly indicate Retracted;

• the article PDF should be clearly marked;

• the retraction notice should be linked to the original article;

• the article should link back to the retraction notice;

• bibliographic metadata should indicate the retracted status; and

• readers should be able to distinguish the article from valid unretracted publications.

The continued availability of a retracted article does not mean that the journal continues to endorse its findings.

33. No Silent Retractions

The journal does not support silent deletion or unmarked removal of articles as a substitute for transparent retraction.

Readers should be able to determine:

• that the article was retracted;

• when the action occurred;

• why it occurred; and

• which publication is affected.

Maintaining this information preserves the transparency of the scholarly record.

34. DOI and Bibliographic Record

Where an article has a DOI or another persistent identifier, that identifier should ordinarily continue to resolve to the scholarly record after retraction.

The retraction notice should be linked to the DOI record where technically possible.

The objective is to ensure that readers following earlier citations are informed of the article's current status.

35. Notification of Indexing and Metadata Services

Where supported by the journal's technical systems and relevant external services, the journal may update article metadata to reflect the retraction.

This may include communicating updated status information to:

• DOI registration services;

• indexing services;

• bibliographic databases;

• library systems; or

• other scholarly discovery systems.

The journal cannot guarantee how quickly external services will update their records.

36. Article Removal

Complete removal of published content should be exceptional and distinct from ordinary retraction.

Removal may be considered where continued availability would create a serious:

• legal risk;

• privacy violation;

• patient-safety concern;

• confidentiality breach;

• security threat; or

• other compelling harm.

Where legally and technically possible, a bibliographic record or explanatory notice should remain in place to preserve transparency.

37. Retract and Republish

In exceptional circumstances, the journal may consider a retract and republish approach when an article contains major errors requiring retraction but a substantially corrected version can legitimately replace the unreliable work.

Any such process should:

• clearly identify the retracted version;

• explain the relationship between versions;

• undergo appropriate editorial and peer review;

• avoid concealing the history of the original publication; and

• provide readers with transparent version information.

This mechanism should not be used simply to avoid publishing a correction or acknowledging significant errors. COPE's updated guidance recognizes retract-and-republish as an option in limited circumstances.

38. Appeals Against Retraction

Authors may appeal a retraction decision where they believe that a significant factual, evidentiary, or procedural error affected the outcome.

An appeal should:

• identify the decision being challenged;

• explain the specific grounds;

• provide supporting evidence; and

• avoid merely repeating arguments already evaluated.

Where practicable, an appeal should be reviewed by an individual who was not solely responsible for the original retraction decision.

An appeal does not automatically suspend or reverse a retraction.

39. Reversal of a Retraction

Retraction is intended to be a serious and normally permanent scholarly action.

However, if compelling new evidence demonstrates that the retraction itself was materially incorrect, the journal may review the decision and publish an appropriate notice explaining the outcome.

The publication history should remain transparent rather than silently removing evidence of the earlier action.

40. Confidentiality During Investigation

Retraction investigations are handled with appropriate confidentiality.

Information should ordinarily be shared only with individuals or organizations whose involvement is necessary for:

• evidence assessment;

• institutional investigation;

• ethical evaluation;

• legal compliance; or

• protection of the scholarly record.

Absolute confidentiality cannot be guaranteed where disclosure is legally required or necessary to investigate a serious concern.

41. Conflict of Interest in Retraction Decisions

Editors handling a potential retraction must disclose relevant conflicts of interest.

Where an editor has a material relationship with:

• the authors;

• complainant;

• institution;

• funder; or

• subject of the investigation,

responsibility should be transferred to another qualified editor.

Articles authored by editorial-board members should be evaluated independently of the individuals concerned.

42. Editorial Independence

Retraction decisions must remain independent of:

• author seniority;

• institutional reputation;

• citation impact;

• financial considerations;

• funding relationships;

• commercial interests;

• potential adverse publicity; or

• pressure from interested parties.

The publisher may provide legal, administrative, or technical support but should not prevent legitimate editorial action required to protect the scholarly record.

43. Timeliness

The journal seeks to evaluate serious concerns without unnecessary delay.

Complex cases may nevertheless require time for:

• author responses;

• examination of original data;

• independent review;

• institutional investigation;

• ethical consultation; or

• legal assessment.

Where a final decision cannot reasonably be reached promptly and the concern may materially affect reader reliance on the article, an Expression of Concern may be considered.

44. Post Publication Discussion

Post publication criticism, replication failures, scholarly correspondence, or reader concerns may lead to a retraction assessment where they provide credible evidence of a fundamental problem.

Academic criticism alone is not sufficient for retraction.

The journal will distinguish between:

• legitimate disagreement;

• an alternative interpretation;

• a correctable error; and

• evidence that an article is fundamentally unreliable.

45. Relationship With Corrections and Retractions Policy

The Corrections and Retractions Policy provides the journal's broader framework for managing post-publication amendments, corrections, Expressions of Concern, retractions, and exceptional article removal.

This Retraction Policy focuses specifically on:

• grounds for retraction;

• assessment procedures;

• author response;

• institutional involvement;

• retraction notices;

• article marking;

• appeals; and

• preservation of the retracted scholarly record.

The two policies should be read together.

46. Relationship With Article Withdrawal Policy

Retraction and article withdrawal are not interchangeable.

Article Withdrawal generally applies at stages before or around formal publication where withdrawal remains procedurally appropriate.

Retraction applies when an article has entered the scholarly record and later requires formal identification as unreliable or fundamentally compromised.

Published articles should not ordinarily be silently withdrawn when a transparent retraction is the appropriate corrective mechanism.

47. Relationship With Research Misconduct Policy

Retraction may arise from research misconduct, but not every retraction establishes misconduct.

Similarly, not every finding of misconduct necessarily requires retraction if the affected publication remains scientifically reliable and another corrective mechanism is sufficient.

The journal evaluates the status of the publication separately from institutional disciplinary determinations.

48. Responsibilities of Authors

Authors are expected to:

• report significant errors promptly;

• cooperate with legitimate editorial inquiries;

• provide relevant supporting documentation;

• avoid concealing integrity concerns;

• respond professionally to allegations;

• disclose new evidence affecting reliability; and

• cooperate with appropriate correction or retraction procedures.

Authors should not seek article removal merely to avoid scholarly criticism or reputational consequences.

49. Responsibilities of Editors

Editors are responsible for:

• assessing credible concerns impartially;

• protecting confidentiality;

• obtaining appropriate evidence;

• distinguishing correction from retraction;

• allowing reasonable author response;

• seeking expert advice when required;

• managing conflicts of interest;

• communicating with institutions where justified;

• preparing clear retraction notices; and

• ensuring that the status of retracted content is visible.

Editors should document the basis for significant corrective decisions.

50. Responsibilities of the Publisher

The publisher should support implementation of legitimate retraction decisions.

Where technically feasible, the publisher should assist in:

• publishing the retraction notice;

• linking the notice and article;

• marking article pages and PDFs;

• maintaining publication metadata;

• preserving the historical record; and

• communicating status updates through appropriate technical systems.

Technical inconvenience or reputational concerns should not be used to obscure a justified retraction.

Retraction Notice Format

Where applicable, a retraction notice may contain the following information:

Title: Retraction: [Title of Retracted Article]

Retracted Article: [Full citation]

DOI: [Article DOI]

Reason for Retraction: A clear factual explanation of the reason the article can no longer be relied upon.

Initiated By: Editor / Author(s) / Journal, as applicable.

Author Position: Whether the authors agree, disagree, or did not respond, where relevant.

Date of Retraction: [Date]

The exact format may vary according to the circumstances of the case.

Commitment to the Integrity of the Scholarly Record

Digital Health & Telemonitoring Advances considers retraction an important but serious mechanism for preserving confidence in scholarly communication.

The journal will seek to use retraction only when evidence demonstrates that published work is fundamentally unreliable, seriously compromised, or otherwise inappropriate to remain in the literature without a clear warning. Honest errors will be distinguished from misconduct where the available evidence permits, and authors will normally be given an opportunity to respond.

Retraction notices will be designed to inform readers rather than punish individuals. Retracted articles will ordinarily remain identifiable within the scholarly record, clearly marked and linked to the relevant notice so that the publication history remains transparent.

Through proportionate investigation, independent editorial judgment, transparent notices, and preservation of the publication record, Digital Health & Telemonitoring Advances seeks to maintain the reliability, accountability, and integrity of the research it publishes.